2026-09-24 - Land Use & Transportation Committee

00:03Good morning.

00:14Good morning. Welcome to the land use

00:17and transportation committee.

00:19>> Supposed to be bring it up. Let me

00:20check.

00:21>> My name is Ryan Dorsy. I'm the chair of

00:23the committee and representative of the

00:24third city council district. To my

00:27immediate left, we have Councilwoman

00:30Sharon Green Middleton, vice president

00:32of the city council and vice chair of

00:33the committee. To her left, we have

00:35Councilman Zack Blanchard.

00:38>> To my far right, we have uh Councilman

00:41Paris Gray.

00:43>> To his left, Councilwoman Felicia

00:45Porter.

00:46>> To my immediate right, we have staff to

00:48the committee, Mr. Tony Leva.

00:51>> And um I see Councilman Conway's joined

00:54us this morning.

00:56We uh have representatives here from a

01:00range of city agencies. Um and there's a

01:03fair number of folks from the public

01:06here uh for I believe several of the

01:08bills. Um we have

01:12seven agenda items today.

01:15We have several sort of routine land use

01:19bills that we are going to go through

01:21first um hopefully somewhat quickly.

01:25Um, there are signup sheets.

01:29Uh, are they out in the hall?

01:31>> They're out in the lobby.

01:32>> Okay.

01:33>> We're waiting on 205, but it should be

01:35here in a moment.

01:36>> Okay. There are signup sheets for those

01:40who wish to testify

01:42uh out in the lobby. Um, please be sure

01:46to check the box for support or oppose

01:50and uh as well as do you actually wish

01:54to testify. Some people sign the sheets

01:57even though they don't actually wish to

01:58testify. So, I want to be sure we've um

02:02we've got that all clear. Um, we also

02:05have folks online. Um Tony uh will

02:09always Tony's putting the link in the

02:14chat to do the online

02:17uh testimony sign up.

02:21Please fill out that form. If you'd like

02:23to testify online um on any on on

02:28the bills where we'll be taking

02:29testimony, we will call on uh public

02:33testimony in person first. Uh, and when

02:37we've gone through all of the in-person

02:39testimony on that given bill, we will

02:42then go to online testimony, both in

02:45person and online. Uh, when giving

02:47testimony, you'll be given two minutes.

02:52Um

02:54the first bill that we will

02:57hear today

03:00uh is council bill 25128

03:04zoning conditional use conversion of a

03:07single family dwelling unit to three

03:09dwelling units in the R8 zoning district

03:131118 North Kerry Street.

03:17>> Thank you. Um,

03:29actually, I'm going to hold off on this

03:30one for a few minutes. Um, uh, give

03:34Councilman Balock time to arrive. Uh, as

03:37he is the sponsor of the bill.

03:41Um, we will go to council bill 260148,

03:46reszoning 205 to 209 East Cold Spring

03:49Lane.

03:52Uh, this is from Councilman Mark Conway.

03:55Councilman Conway, do you want to come

03:56to the podium to present the bill to us,

03:58please?

04:11Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, this is a

04:14relatively straightforward bill. Um,

04:16this is for property along Culturing

04:18Lane that has been

04:21uh used as a a a parking space, a

04:24parking lot for some time. It was

04:25actually um cleared initially as a

04:29staging place for the repair and upgrade

04:32of the Guilford reservoir um which had

04:35to be capped. Um it is owned by Lyola

04:38and we are trying to zone it so that

04:40Lyola can uh bake it into its broader

04:42school plans and we are asking that it

04:44be changed to EC2.

04:46>> Great. Thank you. Um and are there folks

04:49from Lyola here that want to speak to

04:51this? Uh let's bring you up.

04:59Good morning, Mr. Chair.

05:01>> Press one.

05:03>> There we go. Good morning, Mr. Chair,

05:04members of the committee. Colin Weski on

05:06behalf of Lyola University. Uh, here as

05:09the applicant and in support of 26148.

05:12So, this resoning would transition what

05:14is commonly known as the triangle lot

05:16from the R1C district to join the rest

05:18of Loyola's property in the EC2

05:20district. Uh we respectfully submit that

05:23the basis as adopted by the planning

05:24commission is a mistake. The triangle

05:27borders a massive contiguous EC2 zoning

05:29district that comprises the campuses of

05:31Lyola and Notream of Maryland. Has been

05:34owned by Lyola since 1968, but during

05:36that ownership history, Loyola has made

05:38no series to attempt any residential

05:40structure or even a campus structure on

05:42the property due to its abnormal shape.

05:44Um it's a triangle. uh development of a

05:48single family home is compl contemplated

05:50by the current zoning remains

05:51impractical on the space. The zoning

05:53would allow the university to use its

05:54land for university use. I would also

05:57add that Lyola has voluntarily agreed in

06:00perpetuity to forego the possibility of

06:03many of the commercial uses permitted in

06:05an EC2 district to respect the nature of

06:07the single family home community that

06:10the triangle borders. And there should

06:12be a letter on file uh from the Guilford

06:14Association from just a couple days ago

06:16reflecting this agreement. Uh if not, I

06:18have a copy that I can read into the

06:19record. Uh we have proposed findings of

06:22fact as outlined in our memo and I'm

06:23happy to answer any questions on them.

06:25But I would just note that this uh

06:27project is the result of almost 5 years

06:29of community work uh and negotiation and

06:32at its completion will be I'm confident

06:35in saying the most beautified parking

06:36lot in the city of Baltimore.

06:40>> Thank you. Um,

06:43do any committee members have any

06:44questions for the applicant?

06:49Okay. Uh, Councilwoman, uh, one second,

06:52Councilwoman Porter. Uh, I just want to

06:54say welcome Counciloman Parker, uh,

06:57member of the committee. And then we

06:58also do have Councilwoman Odet Ramos

07:00with us. Um, she has a bill on the

07:02agenda here. We will be calling on her

07:04to present that shortly. Uh,

07:06Councilwoman Porter.

07:08>> Thank you. So, thank you so much, Mr.

07:10Chair. Um, has the community association

07:12weighed in on this?

07:14>> Yes, there is. Uh, we have been

07:17negotiating with the North Baltimore

07:19Neighborhood Coalition, which is

07:20actually all the community associations

07:22that border Lyola for the better part of

07:255 years about this. There's a letter of

07:27support from them on file with the

07:28planning commission. And as I noted, uh,

07:31we have just recently in the last couple

07:33days finalized a memorandum

07:36of understanding. I apologize. uh with

07:39the Guilford Association uh to agree

07:41into perpetuity to forego most of the

07:45commercial uses that would be allowed in

07:47an EC2 zone to respect the residential

07:49nature of this property moving forward.

07:52>> All right, thank you so much.

07:54>> Thank you. Okay, we will go to Thank

07:56you.

07:56>> We'll go to agency reports now. Um law

07:59department.

08:01>> Good morning, Mr.

08:03>> That's yours.

08:04>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Michelle Toth. On

08:07behalf of the law department, we approve

08:09this bill for form and legal

08:10sufficiency.

08:12>> Thank you. Planning. Good morning, Mr.

08:15Chair, members of the committee. Eric

08:16Tiso for the planning commission. Uh

08:18they reviewed this bill in their public

08:19meeting of April 2nd and recommend

08:21approval. At the time uh of their April

08:23meeting, they also wanted to offer

08:26strong encouragement that the applicant

08:27and community work together on an

08:28understanding to address the community's

08:30concerns uh on long-term use. And it

08:32looks like that has been accomplished.

08:33So, they do recommend approval.

08:36Thank you. Um,

08:39BMZA.

08:41[clears throat]

08:42>> Good morning, council. Sunny Boyce for

08:44BMZA. Uh, we have no objection.

08:46>> Thank you. DOT.

08:48>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Luciano, the S for

08:50DOT. We have no recommendation.

08:53>> Thank you, DHCD.

08:56>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jason Wright

08:57representing DHCD. We respectfully stand

09:00behind our favorable bill report.

09:02>> Thank you. Any questions for any of

09:03these committee representatives from the

09:05committee?

09:08And uh do I take it we have no other

09:10public testimony here on this bill?

09:22I haven't seen anybody.

09:28>> Anybody here to testify on this bill?

09:31Okay, great. Um, then, uh, we have no

09:35amendments for this bill. I move the

09:38bill favorable. Um,

09:42uh, any

09:45>> uh, we do need to move findings of fact.

09:46Thank you. I'm a little out of sorts

09:48this morning. I had a traumatic incident

09:50yesterday. Um, we do need to move

09:54finding a fact. Thank you, Councilman

09:55Parker.

09:57Um

09:59uh in the planning commission report

10:01there are proposed findings of facts uh

10:04which the applicant reiterated um the

10:08most essential of which is that this

10:10reasonzoning is predicated on uh

10:13justified by there having been a mistake

10:16uh in the past and um that this meets

10:18the so-called change or mistake uh

10:21standard and so uh I propose we uh I

10:26Approve the finding of facts. Uh all in

10:29favor of adopting the findings of facts

10:31from the planning commission report say

10:32I.

10:33>> I oppose say nay. Abstain. Okay. The

10:37finding of facts are voted favorable. Uh

10:41I move the bill uh to recommend

10:43favorable. Uh all in favor of approving

10:46this bill say I.

10:48>> I. Oppose say nay. Abstain.

10:52Great. We have a uh we will report this

10:56bill favorable at the next city council

10:58meeting.

11:00Um next bill

11:03260149

11:06reszoning 2441

11:09and 244 to uh 2441 through 2449 West

11:16Baltimore Street.

11:18Um,

11:20this is another bill from Councilman

11:24Bullock who has not yet

11:28arrived. Um,

11:30pardon me one moment.

12:34Oh, there he is. Great. Calvin Bullock.

12:41Um,

12:42well, we'll just we'll do the one that I

12:44just called. Uh, welcome Councilman

12:47Bullock. We have two bills of yours.

12:48We're going to do back toback right now.

12:50>> Yes.

12:52>> Reszoning 260149.

12:55Reszoning 2441 2 through 2449 West

12:59Baltimore Street.

13:16Good morning, Mr. Chair and and

13:18colleagues. Uh appreciate you uh taking

13:20the time to uh hear this bill.

13:22>> Again, this is um a property that um we

13:26have been aware of in terms of the

13:28community. Um they are using it um for

13:31some

13:36they has gone in front of the planning

13:37commission and uh fortunately they have

13:39met with um the community association.

13:41Initially there were some um uh lack of

13:45alignment but fortunately that was able

13:47to be worked out. So again um any

13:48questions I'll take those but again

13:50appreciate the opportunity.

13:53>> Thank you. Any questions for the sponsor

13:55of the bill?

13:56>> Just a quick question. So, you're saying

13:58that um as far as traffic and parking

14:01and all that stuff has been ironed out?

14:05>> Yes. Thank you.

14:06>> Thank you,

14:10>> Council Parker.

14:11>> Uh yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you,

14:14Mr. Bulock. Um so, it's currently in I1

14:17zoning and switching to C2. Uh you

14:19mentioned the the healthc care uses or

14:21at least the I think you did and then

14:23the um the bill does. It's is it

14:26currently already being used for

14:27healthcare? Like is the use changing

14:29with the zoning change or is it or are

14:32we changing the zoning to make sure it

14:33matches the use?

14:35>> Matching the use.

14:36>> Okay.

14:36>> Yes.

14:36>> So the the the use has been in in place

14:38for a while and um the use has been like

14:42the community hasn't objected to that

14:44use. It's been uh there haven't been any

14:46issues with that use in that space.

14:48>> Fortunately, not at this point.

14:49>> Great. Thank you, Mr. B.

14:50>> Thank you.

14:52Um,

14:54Councilman Block, are do we have

14:56amendments for this bill? I see that the

14:58planning commission report recommended

15:03instead of changing it from I1 to C2,

15:08it recommended changing it to IMU1.

15:13Were those was that drafted as an

15:15amendment? Is it your intention to

15:18>> um, yes, follow that recommendation?

15:20Okay, Tony, do we have that?

15:32>> No, we haven't gotten a lot of

15:33amendments.

15:40>> No, we did not receive those from DR

15:42yet.

15:42>> Okay, we did not receive that amendment

15:44from DLR yet.

15:46Um

15:52let's take our um agency test our agency

15:56reports and then

15:59um address that.

16:03Um okay, law department.

16:07>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. The law department

16:09approves for form and legal sufficiency.

16:12>> Great. Thank you. Uh BMZA

16:16Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. BMZA has no

16:18objection.

16:19>> Thank you, DOT.

16:21>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. DOT has no

16:23recommendation.

16:24>> Thank you, housing.

16:27>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jason Wright

16:28representing DHCD. We uh respectfully

16:30stand behind our favorable bill report.

16:32Thank you.

16:33>> Thank you. Planning.

16:34>> Good morning again. Uh this bill was

16:36reviewed by the planning commission in

16:37their public meeting on May 14th. uh and

16:40in our analysis of course we have to

16:42meet the required findings and

16:43considerations to justify a reasonzoning

16:45uh and we were not able to do that for

16:47the C2 so we recommended and work with

16:48the applicant to uh go to IMU1 in the

16:51alternative uh we believe that that's a

16:53more justifiable standard especially as

16:55this property is on the corner and

16:57straddles the remainder of the the

16:59grouping of I1 in that block and the R8

17:01uh across the street uh to the other two

17:04corners. um but that would still allow

17:06for the continuation of the use that the

17:08applicant is looking for. So we found uh

17:10a more acceptable path to uh get to a

17:13solution that is workable and apologies

17:15if we missed getting uh the formal

17:17amendments drafted is most likely

17:19miscommunication on our part.

17:22>> Okay, thank you. Um

17:26Tony, you're checking in with DLR.

17:54Are there any questions for the any of

17:56the agency staff?

18:00And is there anybody else here to

18:03testify on this bill?

18:10Okay, let's do the other uh block bill

18:13and then we'll come back to this for a

18:15vote when we have the amendments.

18:28>> Yeah.

18:30Uh, council bill 25128,

18:35zoning conditional use conversion of a

18:38single family dwelling unit to three

18:39dwelling units in the R8 zoning

18:41district, 1118

18:43North Kerry Street. Councilman Block.

18:47>> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair and committee

18:48members and colleagues. Again, this is

18:50uh one of our pretty standard

18:52conversions. I will say the property has

18:54the adequate uh size um square footage

18:57for the three units. Um we did have some

19:00members of the community, this is in the

19:01uh Harlem Park, Lafayette Square area.

19:04We had some members of the community

19:05also come out to the planning

19:06commission. Um they were able to

19:08actually talk to um the developer and

19:10have alignment in terms of what it can

19:12do in the neighborhood. So again,

19:13hopefully we can get your support um to

19:16get this property back in productive

19:17use.

19:19>> Thank you. Any questions for the sponsor

19:21of the bill from the committee?

19:25>> Okay. Thank you. And does the the

19:28applicant I understand is here. Uh would

19:30the applicant like to speak to the bill?

19:32>> No.

19:33>> Okay. Um

19:36we will go to

19:41Okay. I'll come back to that after we do

19:43this one. Uh can you send it around to

19:46the committee members? Uh committee

19:49members, before we go to the agency

19:51reports on this bill, Tony's going to

19:52send around the amendments from the bill

19:55we were just on a moment ago, uh he has

19:58them uh in his email. Um just received

20:02them and going to send them around to

20:04you so you have them digital and PDF.

20:06You all have that in your inboxes.

20:08Um okay, back to this bill. Um [snorts]

20:13the uh law department

20:17Good morning, Mr. Chair. Desire Lucky.

20:19On behalf of the law department, we

20:21approve this bill for form and legal

20:23sufficiency.

20:23>> Thank you. Um,

20:27>> BMZA.

20:30>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. BMZA has no

20:32objection.

20:33>> Thank you, DOT.

20:35>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Do has no

20:36recommendation.

20:38>> Thank you, Housing.

20:40>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jason Wright,

20:42representing DHCD. We respectfully stand

20:43behind our favorable bill report. Thank

20:45you. Fire department. We usually don't

20:47have fire reporting on these bills.

20:49>> Yes. Uh good morning, Mr. Chair. I'm

20:51Sean Ames representing the office of of

20:52the fire marshall. The fire department

20:54has no um opposition to council bill

20:5725-0128.

20:59>> Great. Thank you. Um

21:04okay. Uh any questions for any agency

21:07personnel from the committee? Hey,

21:10Council.

21:10>> So, just for clarification and um for

21:14the record, this amendment is just um

21:17>> the other bill.

21:19>> Oh, I'm sorry.

21:21>> Uh we have no amendments to this bill.

21:24Um

21:27okay. Do we have anybody else here to

21:29testify on this bill?

21:36No. Okay. Nobody in person, nobody

21:37online. Um,

21:45we have a finding of facts in the

21:48planning commission report.

21:51Um, can you just reiterate that one more

21:54time, Eric?

21:56>> Uh, so let me scroll down one moment.

22:00Um,

22:01I can walk through them one at a time if

22:03you would like.

22:03>> No, no, no. Just generally this is a

22:05change mistake. Is this for 128?

22:08>> Oh, it's Sorry. It's a conditional use.

22:10I'm sorry. We've met the standards for

22:12the conditional use. I'm really

22:14>> That's okay. I'm making sure.

22:15>> Someone say I shouldn't be here today.

22:16>> Just making sure we're on bill 128.

22:18>> Yeah. 128. We're good

22:19>> for this uh conversion. Um we noted

22:22especially a hardship uh feature where

22:24the applicant purchased the property and

22:26it had already been framed out for three

22:28units at the point where he took

22:30possession of it. Um and since uh bless

22:34you, the uh the changes to the zoning

22:36code have altered the um bulk

22:39requirements, it actually reduces uh the

22:42requirements for the lot area variance.

22:44Um and of course, parking is no longer

22:46applicable. So that makes it even more

22:48approvable. We believe that this is very

22:50reasonable uh to have this density,

22:52especially in light of the uh the

22:54existence of the framing. And so

22:56therefore, the planning commission

22:57recommended favorable.

22:58>> Great. Thank you. um adopt these

23:01findings of fact. All in favor say I.

23:04>> I.

23:05>> Opposed say nay.

23:07Abstain.

23:09Okay. This uh findings of fact are

23:12adopted. Uh all in favor of approving

23:15this bill say I.

23:17>> I. Oppose say nay. Abstain. Okay. This

23:21bill will be recommended favorable at

23:23the next city council meeting. Good

23:25morning former mayor uh young. Thank you

23:28for joining us here today.

23:33Um,

23:35okay. Now, we have the amendments for

23:37the prior bill 260149.

23:41Um, Councilman Block, do you want to

23:44move those amendments?

23:50>> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair and colleagues

23:51would like to move the amendments.

23:53>> Uh, all in favor of adopting the

23:55amendments, say I. I I oppose say nay.

24:00Abstain.

24:01Great. And um

24:05we will adopt a finding

24:08of fact

24:10from the

24:14planning commission report,

24:17which I'm going to take one more second

24:18here and just look at real quick.

24:30Just one.

24:37>> Okay. We'll adopt the finding of fact uh

24:39from the planning commission report. All

24:41in favor of adopting the finding of fact

24:44say I.

24:45>> I. Oppose say nay.

24:48>> Abstain.

24:50Okay. Great. Uh,

25:00>> I I was just curious because I thought

25:02we had moved to 128. Did we dispose of

25:05that? Because these amendments are for

25:08149, I believe.

25:09>> Did I?

25:10>> Okay.

25:11>> We did. Yeah, we came back to 149.

25:15Um

25:17so we have adopted the finding effect of

25:19fact for 260149.

25:23Um we have um

25:28moved the we have adopted we voted

25:31favorable on the amendment. Um

25:35uh Councilman Block would you like to

25:36move this bill favorable with amendment?

25:40>> Yes. Like to move favorable as amended.

25:42>> Great. Uh all in favor of recommending

25:45this bill favorable with amendment say

25:47I.

25:48>> I oppose say nay. Abstain. Great. This

25:52bill will be reported out favorable with

25:55amendment at the next council meeting.

25:58Uh next bill

26:02260205

26:04resoning 432 East 32nd Street.

26:08Councilman Ramos will come to the podium

26:10and present it to us.

26:25Love it.

26:28>> Super smooth.

26:30>> I know. [laughter]

26:32>> Oh, thank you to council staff for uh

26:34providing me with a a podium that I can

26:37actually uh stand normally. [laughter]

26:39Uh good morning, Mr. Chair, members of

26:41the committee. Um my name is Odet Ramos.

26:44I'm the councilwoman for the 14th

26:46district. Um I'm grateful for the

26:48opportunity to present this bill today.

26:50Um and thank you for scheduling it. Uh

26:52this bill before you uh reszones a

26:55vacant lot from a C1 to open space. The

26:58vacant lot in question and you'll see

27:00from my testimony a map that shows where

27:03uh the the lot is. Anybody who's been to

27:06the Waverly Market uh has seen that the

27:10Waverly Market uses the Waverly parking

27:12lot which is owned by the city as well

27:14as the adjoining uh lot uh which is

27:17owned by Waverly Main Street LLC uh

27:20affiliate of Waverly Main Street. And uh

27:24so we I just wanted to make sure that

27:27everything was correct. Um you'll see

27:29from my testimony and others that have

27:31come in that the lot currently in

27:34addition to being used for the Waverly

27:36market is also being used uh you know in

27:39the community for community gatherings

27:41uh and has been this way for over 50

27:44years. It has been a vacant lot for over

27:4650 years. The Waverly Market has been in

27:49existence for 45 years year round even

27:52in 20°ree weather they utilize that lot

27:55uh for for the market. Uh also there is

27:59a historic um significance to the lot.

28:03Uh and because we can't designate vacant

28:06lots as historic, I can't designate it

28:08as historic. Uh I tried, believe me. Um,

28:10so, uh, the historic significance of it

28:13is at one point in time, and you'll see

28:15this in my testimony, uh, that, um, the

28:19part closest to Marary Men's Lane was

28:22once Waverly School 115, which was one

28:25of the city's uh, schools black for

28:28black students. Um, back in the day,

28:30Baltimore City had not yet annexed

28:32Waverly at the time, but the school

28:34system had annexed this Waverly school.

28:36one of the students became uh the first

28:38black principal of Eastern High School

28:40later on. Uh there is uh a historic

28:43marker that um show shows this history

28:48uh and uh again I can't designate it

28:51historic uh but um I did try and you can

28:54see photos of the uh historic n uh

28:57marker and there's some um metal uh

29:01artwork that's there uh as well. So it

29:04is a community space. It has always been

29:06a community space and I want to make

29:07sure that it stays a community space.

29:09Now, from the zoning perspective, we

29:11have to prove uh that uh this was either

29:14a mistake or because of neighborhood

29:16change. And I would contend as does the

29:19planning commission uh that it was a

29:21mistake that this was not reszoned as

29:23open space during uh transform Baltimore

29:27uh which was our last comprehensive

29:29resoning. Uh I I don't know why and I'm

29:32uh sorry that I you know we can't talk

29:34to Mary Pat about this. Uh it could have

29:36been you know an oversight. Transform

29:38Baltimore was just a huge document and

29:39there was lots of moving parts. Uh so uh

29:43but as you can see it has been used as

29:45an open space as you see from the

29:47testimony and the emails that came in.

29:49Uh residents want to use this as an open

29:51space. Um, some of you may uh know that

29:54we do have some opposition uh and that's

29:57because there is a threat to this open

29:59space and um the

30:03Waverly Main Street had I'm just going

30:04to be very blunt about it. we really

30:06main street had had some challenges uh

30:08even though they have now very we have a

30:10new executive director and a new board

30:12and so lots of things are changing uh

30:14but there were some tax sale issues here

30:17and uh so before uh and I'm trying to

30:20work all of those out uh with finance as

30:22well as with uh with Waverly Main Street

30:26and so uh in the meantime I wanted to

30:28just make sure it's perfectly clear that

30:30this still remain and will always remain

30:32an open space uh because that is uh with

30:36the the will of the community um the

30:38Waverly Market uh and of course we also

30:40used it for book festival if you all

30:42came to book festival uh this past

30:44weekend. So I would ask for your

30:45favorable report uh on this bill and

30:48happy to answer any any questions.

30:51>> Committee members any questions for the

30:53sponsor?

30:59>> Okay. Um why don't you hang here in case

31:01we have any questions that arise over

31:03the course of things.

31:04>> Yep. Thank you.

31:06>> Thank you. Um okay, we will go to the

31:10agency reports next.

31:14>> Uh law department.

31:17>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. The law department

31:20approves this bill for form and legal

31:22sufficiency.

31:27>> Thank you. Um,

31:33sorry. Um, BMZA.

31:36>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. BMZA has no

31:38objection.

31:39>> Thank you. Transportation.

31:41>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Do has no

31:43recommendation.

31:44>> Thank you, HCD.

31:47>> Thank you, [snorts] Mr. Chair. Jason

31:48Reed representing DHCD. We respectfully

31:50stand behind our favorable bill report.

31:51Thank you.

31:52>> Thank you, Planning Commission.

31:54>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. At its meeting of

31:55June 25th, 2026, planning commission

31:57agrees with staff recommendation and

31:59approves the city council bill 26025.

32:02>> Thank you. Any questions for any of the

32:04staff representatives from the

32:06committee?

32:08>> Okay. And we have other testimony here.

32:12Um

32:14Drew

32:15>> Ten.

32:24I'm wearing my tall shoes because I

32:26didn't want to have to get another.

32:32>> There you go.

32:33>> Thank you.

32:34>> Hit that button.

32:36>> Hit the button.

32:40>> I'm just loud. Um Drew Tilden for the

32:42record of Rosenberg Martin Greenberg.

32:44And I'm here today on behalf of the

32:46owner of the property. Um, so I think

32:48there are a few items that I want to run

32:50through today, but as a preliminary

32:51matter, I do want to clarify the

32:53ownership situation. Um, so this

32:55property was owned owned by Waverly Main

32:58Street. It was forwarded to tax sale um

33:00for delinquent property taxes and water

33:02bills. Um, and my client purchased it in

33:06pardon um in May of 2025. They initiated

33:11foreclosure proceedings to foreclose the

33:13right of redemption in February of this

33:15year. They moved forward with those

33:17foreclosure proceedings and actually

33:19just five days before the judge entered

33:21an order vesting fee simple um property

33:24rights in my sorry something going on.

33:27Okay. Um fe simple property rights in my

33:30client. This bill was introduced

33:32downzoning the property. Um and actually

33:34we were able to get a hard copy of the

33:37signed deed from the city to my client

33:39yesterday. Um I have copies that I can

33:41share with the committee today.

33:42Unfortunately, we did did not have it in

33:44time um to submit it to the record, but

33:47in the event that you all would like to

33:49review, there's a copy of a deed

33:51conveying the property to my client. Um

33:54so, moving on beyond that, just because

33:56again to clarify, my client owns the

33:58property. Uh there is a procedural

34:00deficiency in this bill. There was no

34:03statement of intent that was submitted

34:04with it. So, it was actually improperly

34:06in introduced. Not only does the zoning

34:08code require a statement of intent, but

34:10also the city council's rules,

34:12specifically city council rule 18-2,

34:15requires that each bill proposing a

34:17legislative approval shall when

34:19introduced be accompanied by a statement

34:22of intent. Um, so for that reason, I

34:25request that the committee not move this

34:27bill forward. It should not have been

34:28introduced in the first place. Um, but

34:31beyond that, I think I have mentioned

34:33already my client owns this. to pass

34:36this bill would actually constitute an

34:38unconstitutional taking of this

34:40property. Um, how do I know? First of

34:43all, the fifth amendment prohibits the

34:46government from taking private property

34:47without paying just compensation.

34:50That protection extends beyond um to

34:53include any sort of legisl legislative

34:56action that is taken that deprivives a

34:58citizen from any beneficial use of their

35:01property. If this bill moves forward,

35:03then the site, which can currently

35:04accommodate up to 30 apartments along

35:06with a myriad of community oriented

35:08commercial uses, that includes art

35:10galleries and studios, restaurants, nail

35:13and hair salons, bakeries, would be

35:15effectively limited to use as a park or

35:18a playground. And now, how do I know

35:20that this would actually meet the

35:21standard? Well, because in 2016 when

35:25Transform Baltimore was enacted, a

35:27property that was just two blocks away

35:29from the subject property was downzoned

35:31from R7 to outside space. And the city

35:34not only settled a federal civil rights

35:36lawsuit for $595,000,

35:40$595,000 taxpayer dollars, $450,000 of

35:44those were for the vacant lot, and

35:46145,000 of those went to attorneys fees

35:48because it was a federal civil rights

35:50lawsuit. And in the settlement

35:52agreement, the city specifically

35:53stipulated that the downzoning to the

35:55outside space district was an

35:57unconstitutional taking. Um,

36:00unfortunately, this was not flagged for

36:01any of the committees that there was a

36:03pending foreclosure. Um, or not for the

36:06committees for any of the agencies. So,

36:07the law department did not have the

36:09opportunity to address this in their

36:11report. Um but beyond the fact that this

36:14is an unconstitutional taking that it's

36:16improperly before the committee today um

36:18it also fails to meet the change or

36:20mistake standard. So as this committee

36:23knows the Maryland land use article

36:25requires a showing of change or mistake

36:28for any peace meal zoning um otherwise

36:30it would be prohibited. The planning

36:33commission found that there was a

36:34mistake in the council's decision to

36:36zone the property C1 because it has

36:38historically functioned as open space

36:41and has been utilized in conjunction

36:42with the Waverly Farmers Market. Now, my

36:45review of Baltimore City property

36:46records actually indicate that permit

36:48number 2017-77

36:51was issued in late 2017. It was a

36:54demolition permit for a commercial

36:56structure that was on that property. And

36:59the most recent use permit that was

37:01approved was for a grocery store. So in

37:042017, this property was improved by a

37:07grocery store structure. That means in

37:092016 when the law was passed, the

37:11property was improved by a commercial

37:13structure.

37:16I'm I'm sorry, councilwoman. I'm just

37:17pulling from the city records.

37:18>> No, I'm I'm not going to have back and

37:19forth.

37:20>> No, absolutely. And I just want to

37:21clarify.

37:21>> I have an explanation for that.

37:23>> We're going to finish. So, I pulled

37:24Yeah, this is pulled though from

37:26Baltimore City Records permit number

37:282017- 0077. So, I'm not sure how a

37:32property could have been mistakenly

37:33zoned C1 neighborhood commercial when it

37:36was improved by a commercial structure.

37:40Um, so that in mind, there was no

37:43mistake. I don't believe there was a

37:44showing of mistake. And I'm also going

37:45to highlight the fact that in the C1

37:47zoning district, farmers markets and

37:49parks and playgrounds are permitted by

37:51right. So this is not fixing what is uh

37:55making the zoning comply with the use.

37:57The use that is there right now is not

37:59non-conforming. It is permitted by right

38:01will continue to be permitted by right

38:03under the C1 designation. Um so with

38:05that I I welcome any questions.

38:07>> Are there any questions uh for Miss

38:10Tilden?

38:11>> Mr. Chair

38:13I want I want to allow the committee to

38:15ask questions.

38:18>> Yes. Counciloman Porter.

38:19>> Thank you so much. I just wanted to be

38:21recognized before I started. Um, Miss

38:22Tilden, have you talked with

38:24Councilwoman Ramos about this?

38:25>> Yeah, so actually we requested to meet

38:27with Councilwoman Ramos. Um, we spoke

38:29about this and um, we were told there's

38:32no opportunity for compromise. We

38:34attempted to share our plans. My client

38:36is hoping to redevelop the property,

38:38which is again vacant, for use as a 30

38:41unit multif family dwelling with groundf

38:43flooror commercial use that would be

38:45actually open to the Waverly Farmers

38:46Market for them to use um over the

38:49course of um the winter year, the winter

38:52months. Um but again, we were denied the

38:55opportunity to meet with the bill

38:57sponsor,

38:58>> Councilman Parker.

39:01>> Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh I note that

39:05uh most recent estat valuation for the

39:07property is 65,200 as it is you know an

39:10empty um uh C1 property in this area. Um

39:15how much money has your did your client

39:17spend to obtain it to this point? Obtain

39:19or improve it?

39:20>> Yeah. So at this point they have spent

39:22the tax felt was for approximately

39:24$34,000.

39:26Um but when we move into the federal

39:27takings lawsuits um in that case you're

39:30looking at the income potential of the

39:32property and so that just you know by

39:34way of explanation the other lot just

39:36two blocks away that was valued for

39:39purposes of the settlement agreement was

39:41a vacant lot also in Waverly that was

39:43valued at $450,000 for that settlement.

39:46>> Sure. I mean I I appreciate you

39:48following up with there. That wasn't the

39:49question I had asked. I just asked how

39:50much money your client was in for. Um I

39:54is your client interested in selling the

39:55property to the city of Baltimore aside

39:57from this this this plan that's in

39:59>> We would welcome any conversations but

40:01we have not had the opportunity to have

40:02them.

40:03>> Thank you, Miss Tilden. Thank you, Mr.

40:04Chair.

40:05>> Thanks. Any other committee questions?

40:09Okay.

40:12>> No.

40:13>> Okay. I will Thank you. Um I'll go back

40:16to Councilwoman Ramos.

40:17>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um thank you uh

40:20for the opportunity. two two things.

40:22Well, several things. One is that the

40:242017 record that um Miss Tilden is

40:27referencing is for the entire property.

40:30There's the lot and then two other

40:32properties. In 2017, we actually had

40:35them subdivided. So, the building itself

40:39became different than the lot. Okay. We

40:42they were subdivided. Oh, I'm sorry.

40:46Um so the just to repeat so there if you

40:50see on my the map that uh I have here in

40:53testimony okay the circle is the lot the

40:56two red squares are vacant properties at

40:59one point in time prior to 2017 those

41:03were all one parcel. Okay particularly

41:06the one building right next to the lot.

41:08I have emails and I can share them with

41:10the committee uh that show that we uh

41:14subdivided the lot from that building.

41:18The building was uh there you go. Yep.

41:21The building

41:23was determined was uh got the permit for

41:27the grocery store. It still has a sign

41:29on it that says Halal Grocery. Okay. The

41:32lot was subdivided

41:35from the building in 2018209.

41:39Okay. So, the lot has always been

41:43vacant. It's just that it was subdivided

41:46from that building at that time. Okay.

41:50Secondly, it uh just questions on that

41:53because I have a couple more to say.

41:54Yes, ma'am.

41:55>> Please.

41:56>> Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. It seems

41:58why didn't planning actually make that

42:00known within the plot of land? Did we

42:03have I mean you say you have emails but

42:04why wasn't that documented in record?

42:07>> Uh honestly it's got a separate address.

42:10So um so I didn't

42:12>> you want to answer that?

42:12>> Yeah I I we didn't

42:14>> Eric you want to answer that?

42:15>> Oh Austin I'm sorry.

42:17>> I'm pulling up the subdivision history

42:19of it right now.

42:21>> Yeah. Thank you for that question. Um

42:24because it has a separate address. I

42:25didn't think that we needed to, but um

42:28I'm happy to provide you the committee

42:30any evidence that's needed for that.

42:32Okay. The um the second thing about the

42:36the tax sale um the notice, you know,

42:41one of the things that I'm contesting on

42:42the tax sale is the notice. Uh the

42:45Waverly Main Street uh is two things.

42:48One is the water bill and secondly is

42:50the notice. Uh we did not get notice

42:52about the pending foreclosure. we did

42:54not get notice uh of uh the um the tax

42:58sales. So, I'm I'm contesting that. As

43:00you know, I've helped some of you

43:02contest tax sales. Uh and so that is

43:05still pending. Uh I did not know that

43:07the deed had been filed when I filed

43:09this because I filed this bill just

43:11because I I needed to make sure that we

43:13put this in the record. Uh so the timing

43:15is just a coincidence. It's not

43:18something that is uh that is relevant.

43:20Uh and then the last piece around the

43:23meeting uh the re the um the person who

43:28bought the leans uh had started to talk

43:30with residents and I had gotten very

43:33very uh distraught

43:38conversations with uh with residents

43:41about what they wanted to see there. As

43:43you know, I'm all for redevelopment. I'm

43:45doing a lot of work on Green Mount

43:47Avenue to get those vacant properties

43:49fixed uh up and um and we're going to be

43:52filling them in with a lot of great

43:54development. I'm interested in going

43:56higher, but this particular lot because

43:59of the historic nature and because of

44:02the use that the residents have had, uh

44:04we would like to keep it open space and

44:06this is the only leverage that I have is

44:08the zoning leverage. Uh so to the

44:12councilman's point, you know, obviously

44:13I'm interested in entering in those

44:15types of discussions. Uh so when they

44:18reached out to me and said, "Hey, we

44:19want to have uh a meeting about this."

44:22Uh generally I'm very good at having

44:24meetings and I'll be happy to do that. I

44:25did talk with Miss Tilden. Uh but I

44:28wanted to make it very clear that I

44:30wasn't compromising on the fact that we

44:32need to have this as open space.

44:37Councilman Gray.

44:40>> Uh this this question is for law. Um

44:42just from your insight um how did you

44:46come to your decision uh to uh to be

44:50okay with um with this bill going

44:52through? Could you just walk us through

44:53the process in light of uh Miss Tilden

44:56saying that potentially there could be a

44:58lawsuit?

45:01>> Thank you for the question. Um, when I

45:05wrote my bill report, this information

45:08was not available. When I looked at the

45:10records, Waverly LLC was the owner of

45:13record. Um, this information came to

45:17light afterwards.

45:19And really what the law department does

45:22is provide the council with the

45:25standards that must be met for a

45:28reasoning. And it is the province of the

45:32council to find facts and to determine

45:36whether those facts meet the standards

45:39for a reasoning. Um,

45:42if I had known this, I probably would

45:45have flagged the fact that

45:49if this bill is approved

45:53and if it is challenged in a court,

45:57um, and the court finds that there was a

45:59taking, then the legislation would

46:02either be invalid or the city would have

46:06to purchase the property for fair fair

46:09value.

46:10Um but that is

46:13the choice of the council as to whether

46:16they believe there is facts to enact

46:21this reasonzoning.

46:23There is a risk if it is challenged that

46:27a court could find this to be a taking.

46:30>> Okay. Thank you. You answer my question.

46:32I wasn't um I would have figured um for

46:36everyone that knows you guys are always

46:38very uh conservative about saying yes to

46:41a lot of things. So I was kind of

46:42surprised about this. Um but thank you

46:44for your insight.

46:46>> U Mr. Chair, I forgot to mention one

46:48address one other

46:49>> Sure. Um the statement of intent issue.

46:52Uh the I had asked DLR to go ahead and

46:55draft this. Um and uh there is an email

46:59exchange about the fact that they did

47:01not ask for a statement of intent

47:03because I am the applicant uh not a uh

47:07private entity. I am the applicant. Uh

47:10and so acknowledging uh that um

47:15uh that you know we also needed to have

47:18a letter from Waverly Main Street LLC

47:20which we have uh as uh support for for

47:24this uh as well. But that that's the

47:26answer to the um to this statement and

47:29and we may need to to clarify the rule

47:31which we're doing right now as opposed

47:33in terms of if that standard is

47:36something for all of us or is it just

47:38for private entities. So, that's

47:39something as we look through the rules

47:42um that we can certainly clarify, but

47:44DLR did not ask for uh a statement of

47:47intent and that is in an email exchange

47:48with Tony who had flagged it for us.

47:54>> Thank you. Yeah, Councilman Blanchard.

47:57>> Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um just a

48:00maybe a comment for planning, I suppose.

48:03um you know, spaces like

48:07like this lot um that play such an

48:12integral role in connecting community in

48:16and really bringing folks into the main

48:18street and really strengthening the

48:19assets and the businesses around there.

48:22Um I think it's it's very important that

48:25we have these and I think that it is

48:27important looking ahead that we try to

48:29make sure that um we don't have other

48:32spaces being used like this um that may

48:36be at risk of being in this sort of

48:39situation like this. So I would I think

48:41it's important that we we check across

48:43the city to see if there are other lots

48:45like this should that should be zoned

48:47open space to avoid the type of

48:49situation that we have to be in right

48:50now. So, just a just a comment there.

48:53Thank you, Mr. Chair.

48:54>> Mr. Chair, if I could address that real

48:56quick. Um, that actually is going to be

48:58part of the work that we do on the

48:59vacant lot um inventory. Uh, because one

49:03of the criteria for maybe getting out of

49:05having um you know, the vacancy tax

49:08attached to the vacant lot would be to

49:11resone. That's a something that we're

49:12discussing in the working group.

49:14>> Yeah. Thank you, Councilwoman. Thank you

49:15for your app.

49:16>> Thank you. Yep.

49:20Okay.

49:22Uh I will bring Miss Tilden back up. Um

49:25for

49:27the record and for everybody's knowledge

49:30uh and understanding here, this

49:32committee

49:34um conducts two types of business. U

49:38generally when hearing bills, we conduct

49:40quasi judicial business and we conduct

49:42um say politically uh deliberative

49:46business here. Bills of this sort are uh

49:49quasi judicial in nature and require

49:51that we give um opposing representation

49:57appropriate uh for time um uh in the

50:02fashion that a judicial body would be

50:04required to. And so, uh, I have to allow

50:07Miss Tilden to come back up in a way

50:10that I wouldn't otherwise have just

50:12general public testimony on, um, a

50:16matter of policy debate or something

50:18like this. Uh, so, Miss Tilden, you have

50:20the floor again.

50:21>> Thank you. Um, and so I guess I just

50:23have a couple items to quickly address.

50:26Um, I think as a preliminary matter,

50:28this is not the venue to litigate the

50:30issue of a tax sale and whether or not

50:32it there was proper notice. At this

50:34point, we have a deed from the city, and

50:36if there's a tax sale question that you

50:38have, we're happy to discuss it. Um, but

50:40at this point, my client owns the

50:42property. Um, in terms of whether or not

50:44the statement of intent is an issue, the

50:47zoning code requires it from the

50:48applicant, but the city council rules

50:50say regardless of whether or not um it

50:52is submitted by an applicant, these

50:55bills must be accompanied by a statement

50:57of intent. So again, this bill should

50:58not even be before the committee today.

51:00It's improper. Um, I also want to

51:03address the issue of whether or not the

51:04lot was subdivided. Thank you for that

51:06information. I appreciate the

51:08background. Um, but that doesn't

51:09invalidate the fact that when the city

51:11council zoned this property, there was a

51:13there was a commercial structure on it.

51:15It wasn't a mistake. They zoned a

51:17commercial property commercial. It was

51:19subsequently subdivided and this portion

51:22is no longer improved by the commercial

51:23structure. But when this bill when

51:26transform Baltimore was enacted and the

51:28city council chose to zone this property

51:30C1, it's because there was a commercial

51:32structure on it. That's not a mistake.

51:35Um so with that, I welcome any further

51:38questions. Um and again, thank you and

51:41as Miss Toth also, thank you for your

51:43for your assistance.

51:46>> Council Parker,

51:52it's all good.

51:54Um uh the

52:00yes sorry you've made reference a few

52:02times here to uh to to uh that you're

52:05representing the new owner but in as

52:07much as Estat and things I have no idea

52:08who the new owner is. It seems it seems

52:10relevant.

52:11>> Yes absolutely. So I'm representing BEL

52:13Associates and they are excited to begin

52:16investing in the city. So right now this

52:18is their third new construction project

52:21that they are working on. They purchased

52:23it in in May of last year and their

52:25intent was actually to as soon as they

52:27took title of the property begin work on

52:30this site and start clearing out and get

52:32ready for the pre-development process.

52:34They already have an architect on board.

52:36They already have a general contractor.

52:37They're ready to go. Um they've got one

52:39other project in Little Italy that is

52:41another multif family um that is going

52:43to have ground flooror commercial.

52:45They've already gone through

52:46pre-development with that. That included

52:48them working with the community. They're

52:49very familiar with that process. But

52:51then separately, they've got another one

52:53um in another location where they're

52:55looking to potentially do some new

52:57development um uh town homes.

53:00>> Okay. Um it was DL

53:03>> Bel Associates.

53:05>> BEL Associates. Um do you do you mind

53:08mentioning which property in Little

53:09Italy it was?

53:10>> Um I've got it written down here.

53:13>> It was also the vacant land or it was

53:14>> Yes.

53:15>> Okay.

53:17Uh that that was my second question was

53:20what other projects they're involved in.

53:21So thank you.

53:21>> Yeah.

53:25>> Thank you.

53:28>> I just want statement.

53:32>> Councilman Middleton.

53:34I just want to um make a statement as

53:37I'm kind of deliberating here as a a

53:42long-erving member that was a part of

53:45transform Baltimore and knowing that

53:48that whole process took about five six

53:51years and as we have been moving forward

53:55in different uh council districts there

53:59has been um record of mistakes really

54:03throughout out. That was a

54:06a process that started and we got

54:10together because um that transform

54:15never it took the weight was 40 years.

54:19So just imagine keeping things the way

54:22they were for 40 years and then all of a

54:24sudden for four or five years we had to

54:28go through a big extremely large packet

54:33of just everything re that's why it was

54:36called transform

54:38and um yes there uh were mistakes

54:42through that and um and that and that

54:46whole process was really done manually.

54:49ually we had meetings

54:51uh just about in every single district

54:54as we were transforming that. So, um

54:58just want to make that as a matter of

55:00record that yes, m uh the city does make

55:03mistakes, lots of mistakes, and um we're

55:07just kind of keeping that in mind as

55:09we're we're uh trying to make our

55:12decision on

55:14um a a council district that a person

55:18knows inside out and represents that

55:21district. Thank you.

55:25>> Maybe this was spoken to. I just

55:27planning or council Ramos, what does the

55:30comprehensive master plans general land

55:32and use map say about this property?

55:36>> I can speak to that. I

55:37>> I'll thank you.

55:42>> Pretty sure it's pedestrian oriented

55:43commercial.

55:44>> Okay.

55:47>> Um

55:50Okay. Um,

55:59>> we have testimony.

56:01>> We have public test. Oh, we do have

56:03other people. I'm going to go to Mr.

56:04Peter Duval.

56:18>> Button on the right. There you go.

56:21>> Okay.

56:21>> Michelle, can you come speak to me for

56:24one minute?

56:26>> Thank you, Mr. Duval.

56:27>> Yes. I'm Peter Dval, and Tiffany Duncan,

56:30the uh executive director of uh Waverly

56:33Main Street, has asked me to come here

56:35in person and testify in favor of this

56:37bill. Uh

56:40basically, the uh open space is the

56:43current use and the intended use for the

56:46property. So, uh, of course having

56:49zoning that matches that is we believe

56:52the the best thing and, uh, so

56:55therefore, uh, we support the bill.

57:03>> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Duval.

57:08Um,

57:12>> we have one person online as well.

57:21Okay, Tiffany Duncan, we have you signed

57:24up to testify on this bill.

57:30>> Oh, okay.

57:34>> Okay. Okay.

57:41>> Good morning. My name is Tiffany. I'm

57:43executive director from Street. Hello,

57:45Tiffany.

57:47>> Yes. Can you hear me?

57:49>> Poorly. Very poorly.

57:53>> Oh, now.

57:56>> Is that better?

57:58>> Um, very quiet.

58:01>> But we'll all be very quiet here in the

58:03room so that we can hear you the best

58:04that we can.

58:06>> I'm sorry. Thank you. Um, I I would like

58:09to testify and say that I also support

58:11this bill. Um, as the director of

58:14Waverly Main Street, um, I have been,

58:16uh, working with Miss Ramos or

58:19Councilwoman Ramos with getting this

58:21bill um, done and passed. Um, as well as

58:25reviewing all the past records in

58:27reference to the um, inappropriate sale

58:29of this property. Um, I also would like

58:31to add that I actually met with the new

58:34the purchasers of the tax sale. Um and

58:37then their intent that their attorney

58:39has presented today was not the intent

58:41they told me when we met. Um they said

58:43that they supported what we had going

58:45on. Um they just wanted to continue with

58:47ownership. Um so you know I explained to

58:50them if you were from the community we

58:51should all work together. Um so I had

58:54they did not disclose any use or any

58:56purpose of trying to develop property um

58:59on the this land but simply just to

59:01continue to keep it as was in the

59:03community but they just would like to

59:05exercise their ownership. Um but again

59:07as um director that has not only taken

59:12over um operating operations with the

59:15Wling Main Street organization but also

59:18a long-term resident of this community

59:20who has witnessed the use of this

59:22property being utilized in several ways

59:25that benefits the community and

59:26residents of this in this area. Um I

59:28definitely give my full support to this

59:30bill.

59:33>> Thank you.

59:35>> Thank you.

59:37Uh, I believe we have one other person

59:38wishing to testify on this bill in

59:40person here.

59:42State your name for the record, please.

59:43>> Uh, legal name Connor Cowir, last name

59:46Miller. Um, I am a resident uh between

59:50Charles Village and Waverly. I'm here

59:52for a different bill, but uh I would

59:55urge the council to please consider

59:57voting for this because

59:59of the preservation of um

1:00:05community spaces that are used regularly

1:00:07as well as the prevention of more

1:00:10further gentrification to price out

1:00:13residents of the area. Um thank you.

1:00:21Thank you.

1:00:30>> Um,

1:00:34Council Ramos, I'll just ask your shall

1:00:37we proceed?

1:00:39Um, and

1:00:45>> [clears throat]

1:00:57>> Uh, I guess

1:01:38We have proposed findings of facts from

1:01:41the planning commission.

1:01:45um that I would move as the facts.

1:01:49Uh any debate on that?

1:01:53Okay. Um all in f favor of adopting the

1:01:57finding the facts from the planning

1:01:58commission say I. I. Oppose say nay.

1:02:03Abstain.

1:02:05Okay. And there are no amendments to

1:02:07this bill. Um,

1:02:10I will move the bill favorable. Uh, all

1:02:12in favor say I.

1:02:15U. Councilwoman Middleton would uh care.

1:02:20Would you care? Pardon me.

1:02:32All in favor of uh approving this

1:02:36recommending this bill favorable say I.

1:02:38I oppose say nay. Abstain.

1:02:42Great. Councilwoman Middleton. Uh Vice

1:02:45Vice President Middleton like to explain

1:02:47her vote. [clears throat]

1:02:48>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. As we're I do want

1:02:51it made a matter of a record as we're

1:02:53moving this bill forward. Um, I really,

1:02:58you know, feel bad for the, I guess,

1:03:02developers or the people that bought

1:03:04this, um, property. Um, I really think

1:03:09that the city needs to sit down with the

1:03:13council person and the owners and really

1:03:18come up with something whether to um,

1:03:22you know, make a deal to for the city to

1:03:26I mean for them to purchase or

1:03:28something. there. You know, it's a sad

1:03:32situation, but we've had and as far as

1:03:36I've been going through um making

1:03:38corrections, this is really a was a

1:03:41tough one. And I think the the pain and

1:03:45suffering of what this group has or

1:03:49person that bought this land has been

1:03:51going through and had plans and and as

1:03:54we really want to see uh movement like

1:03:58this and helping our city, there needs

1:04:01to be a continued conversation. So, I

1:04:04just wanted to um express that uh

1:04:08councilwoman and hoping that the parties

1:04:11can meet and really sit down and

1:04:15try to um continue to correct this

1:04:19wrong.

1:04:21Thank you,

1:04:22>> Councilwoman Porter.

1:04:23>> I have a question for the law

1:04:24department. What if this goes to what if

1:04:26this goes to court?

1:04:30>> I I can't predict what a court would do.

1:04:33They could find that this was a taking

1:04:35or they may not. It if it is a taking

1:04:38the as I said the legislation would be

1:04:41invalidated or

1:04:44uh the city would have to pay the fair

1:04:46value of the property to the owner

1:04:48>> and so if it is if it is considered

1:04:50invalidated what happens to the

1:04:51community like the community aspect of

1:04:53that?

1:04:55>> So councilwoman Ramos mentioned that

1:04:58there are quite a few community events

1:05:00on this particular plot of land. The

1:05:02court the courts come in determine that

1:05:04it's invalid.

1:05:07>> The Well, this bill seeks to zone this

1:05:10as open space. It would return to

1:05:13>> It would return to the owner.

1:05:14>> Yeah, it Well, it would return to its

1:05:17>> existing zoning.

1:05:18>> Okay,

1:05:18>> Tony, can you just take that?

1:05:21>> Thank you. Okay, we are going to move on

1:05:23momentarily. I'd like to take a fivem

1:05:25minute recess before we go on to the

1:05:26Harford Road Overlay District Bill

1:05:28250093.

1:05:30Quick recess here. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

1:05:33Thank you, colleagues.

1:05:33>> Thank you.

1:05:36>> Okay, thanks everybody.

1:05:39I appreciate everybody's patience.

1:05:44Uh resuming now. Uh we will move on to

1:05:52council bill 250093,

1:05:56zoning Harford Road overlay district. I

1:06:00will um take the podium myself and uh

1:06:04pass the chair over to Councilwoman

1:06:06Middleton. uh while I am at the podium

1:06:23and as he's moving to the podium uh good

1:06:27morning and I just want to

1:06:28[clears throat] read the

1:06:30before you begin I just want to read the

1:06:33purpose which is for establishing the

1:06:35Harford road overlay district.

1:06:38Um,

1:06:40delineating the boundaries of the

1:06:43district, creating

1:06:46applicable use regulations within the

1:06:49district, establishing bulk and yard

1:06:52regulations within the district,

1:06:54detailing other applicable standards

1:06:57within the district, amending certain

1:06:59off- streetet parking requirements, and

1:07:02generally relating to the establishment

1:07:05of the Harford Road overlay.

1:07:08district. And after um you do your uh

1:07:14opening uh statements, uh council member

1:07:18will also get the agency reports.

1:07:27>> Thank you. You can begin.

1:07:29>> Thank you, Madam Chair.

1:07:31Uh colleagues,

1:07:33thank you for hearing this bill with us

1:07:34today. Um

1:07:39the Harford Road business corridor,

1:07:42commercial corridor,

1:07:44um has struggled for decades.

1:07:48um losing businesses,

1:07:51having vacancy, having uh difficulty

1:07:55attracting businesses,

1:07:57um attracting businesses that are alike

1:08:00enough to other businesses that are on

1:08:03the corridor that the new business

1:08:05cannibalizes the business and patronage

1:08:08of the existing customers, making it

1:08:11difficult for either business to

1:08:12survive.

1:08:14um vacancy and um

1:08:19generally

1:08:21use that is not conducive to uh

1:08:25commercial Main Street uh feel and

1:08:27outcome um

1:08:30sort of abounds. Um my staff and I over

1:08:35the last couple of years have done

1:08:37intensive surveying of the corridor. Uh

1:08:41we've also w worked with the Baltimore

1:08:43Development Corporation and their uh

1:08:45community needs assessment uh surveying

1:08:49and

1:08:51um

1:08:52I'll just give a couple of I'm sorry

1:08:55somebody has left their cell phone up

1:08:56here.

1:08:59>> Oh, okay.

1:09:01Um

1:09:03the uh

1:09:06the corridor is made up more than 40% of

1:09:11just four uses of land. One

1:09:15uh making up roughly 10% is churches

1:09:19that are dark for all but a few hours of

1:09:23the week.

1:09:2610. Another 10% about is car related

1:09:30businesses. Uh that is gas stations,

1:09:34uh car repair places, car parts stores,

1:09:37car dealerships, car rentals,

1:09:41parking lots.

1:09:44Third, another 10%

1:09:47vacancy, flatout vacancy.

1:09:50And then about 12%

1:09:52residential generally low you low

1:09:56density residential I mean including

1:10:00commercially zoned

1:10:02single family detached homes on Harford

1:10:05Road taking up space that could be more

1:10:08valuable commercial space but making up

1:10:11the largest single use of land along the

1:10:15Harford Road corridor. Um

1:10:18these things make it difficult for us to

1:10:23revitalize the corridor at the scale

1:10:26necessary.

1:10:29This challenge of the corridor's vi

1:10:32vitality has existed for so long that

1:10:38it had gotten bad enough two decades ago

1:10:42that the city commissioned the

1:10:44preeminent

1:10:45uh kind of urban design firm in the

1:10:48country to

1:10:51survey the area and to work with

1:10:53community to better understand what

1:10:56folks wanted. and believed could come of

1:10:59the corridor and um reported on that and

1:11:05what the preeminent professionals in the

1:11:08field believe is necessary in order to

1:11:12bring about the kind of change that

1:11:14folks want.

1:11:17The most bas basic of those

1:11:20recommendations

1:11:21were

1:11:23heated

1:11:25and the ones that required

1:11:28meaningful substantive change and

1:11:32planning

1:11:34were not heated. The most important

1:11:37recommendations were ignored.

1:11:40um a strategy of trying to revitalize

1:11:45Harford Road in nodes, identifying three

1:11:50small areas where the idea was if you

1:11:56put some facade grant resources, if you

1:12:00put some emphasis into telling people

1:12:03how great this small little pocket area

1:12:06in the neighborhood is, if you make sure

1:12:09that these areas in particular are clean

1:12:12and neat and um you go and support the

1:12:15businesses in your neighborhood, these

1:12:17nodes will survive will will thrive

1:12:19enough that they will be get further

1:12:22investment and the success in those node

1:12:25areas will expand. That strategy failed.

1:12:29Those nodes have not caused any

1:12:32expansion of business investment or real

1:12:36estate investment around them. The only

1:12:38meaningful real estate investment that

1:12:40has occurred in the last 20 years since

1:12:43this strategy was implemented was due to

1:12:46persistent failures of very large

1:12:49unutilized properties outside of those

1:12:52node areas that required unique

1:12:55investment opportunity to arise. Uh, for

1:12:58example, the largest property on all of

1:13:00Harford Road, over three acres being

1:13:02purchased by MCB Real Estate in order to

1:13:05put up uh large housing uh development

1:13:08that is master leased to Morgan. There

1:13:11are very few people that could

1:13:12capitalize a project like that and uh

1:13:15there are very few circumstances that

1:13:17could make a project like that work.

1:13:19master leasing to a college that's right

1:13:22around the corner that has a deficit of

1:13:24thousands of housing units was essential

1:13:26to make that work. Um there was a

1:13:31vacant essentially um

1:13:35uh parking lot that wasn't even being

1:13:38used as a parking lot. It was just an

1:13:40asphalt slab that eventually the owner

1:13:43got sick of owning um and sold and it

1:13:48turned into apartments uh at upper

1:13:50levels above some uh commercial spaces

1:13:54below. Um these opportunities

1:13:59um in fact are more likely to be a

1:14:02catalyst for change in the nodes that

1:14:05they are near than the nodes would ever

1:14:08have been for them uh to change if that

1:14:12makes sense.

1:14:14Um,

1:14:16the Harford Road Overlay District

1:14:18recognizes that the number one

1:14:21recommendation of the 2008 study, which

1:14:25let me be clear, I'm sure that

1:14:27somebody's going to follow me at this

1:14:28podium today and say it's so old. How

1:14:31can you even trust that?

1:14:33when the recommendations are not based

1:14:37when the recommendation when a

1:14:38recommendation is based on basic

1:14:40principles like it takes customers to

1:14:43support businesses. If you don't have

1:14:46enough people living near your

1:14:47businesses, you aren't going to have

1:14:49enough customers. This is a very basic

1:14:51principle that hasn't changed in the

1:14:53last 20 years anymore than it has

1:14:55changed in the last five centuries.

1:14:59Um and so it's as relevant today as it

1:15:02was 20 years ago. Uh when you recognize

1:15:05that the chief recommendation of this

1:15:08report was that you have to address the

1:15:11the insufficient population density. The

1:15:142008 report

1:15:17uh spends considerable time looking at

1:15:20the kinds of neighborhood main streets

1:15:23that people in this area said have the

1:15:26kind of main streets they would like.

1:15:28They talk about Charles Village. They

1:15:30talk about um uh Fels Point. They talk

1:15:33about Hampton. Not that they want their

1:15:36neighborhood to be those neighborhoods,

1:15:38but that those neighborhoods have the

1:15:40kind of main street that they would like

1:15:42Harford Road to have. And the chief

1:15:45difference between those neighborhoods

1:15:47and the Harford Road corridor is a

1:15:50massive difference in population

1:15:52density.

1:15:54The Harford Road overlay seeks to

1:15:56address this in a way that is strategic

1:16:01and I would say surgical. It looks at

1:16:05the whole of the surrounding communities

1:16:08which have roughly 16,000 homes in them

1:16:12and says what if we take a little less

1:16:15than 10% of those properties and I don't

1:16:18mean to say take. What if we

1:16:21what if

1:16:23a little less than 10% of those

1:16:25properties that are closest enough to

1:16:28Harford Road or closest to Harford Road.

1:16:31What if those

1:16:34were able to have more housing than what

1:16:37is there now? If we simply remove the

1:16:41prohibition

1:16:42that exists, because

1:16:46as soon as you step foot off of Harford

1:16:48Road,

1:16:50nothing is allowed to exist except for

1:16:53essentially single family detached

1:16:55homes. There are some uh examples here

1:16:59and there sporadically along the

1:17:00corridor where there are a few row homes

1:17:02and a couple of duplexes, but by and

1:17:04large nothing is allowed to exist on any

1:17:07side street off of Harford Road except

1:17:09for a single family detached home. Hence

1:17:11the extreme low density of population

1:17:13that's there. If we just allow the first

1:17:18say 500 ft, which once you take into

1:17:21account the properties that front on

1:17:23Harford Road, which are about 150 ft

1:17:25deep generally,

1:17:27um you're really only talking about like

1:17:29five houses down any neighborhood side

1:17:32street. If we allow those houses the

1:17:35possibility

1:17:37of becoming higher density housing

1:17:40through creation of apartments,

1:17:43then we might stand a chance in the next

1:17:46generation or the generation after that

1:17:49of Harford Road having developed enough

1:17:52slightly more population density to

1:17:54support this corridor in the way that it

1:17:56needs.

1:17:58Um in addition to this allowance of

1:18:02housing

1:18:04uh where it's extremely limited

1:18:07presently uh the the

1:18:11overlay ordinance

1:18:14maintains um many of the sort of use

1:18:19standards that are commonly found in

1:18:25urban renewal plans. uh restricting

1:18:28certain uses on the commercial corridor

1:18:31itself that are thought to be um

1:18:36antithetical to a main street sort of

1:18:39outcome like

1:18:43large parking lots and

1:18:46um park parking lots and auto related

1:18:49businesses, car dealerships and other

1:18:52things. Um

1:18:55uh as well as restricting curb cuts so

1:18:57that we don't end up with more and more

1:19:00driveways where cars are driving across

1:19:02the sidewalk where we want to make it

1:19:04safe for pedestrians.

1:19:06Uh

1:19:12as well as some that we were we just

1:19:15received last night I believe from BMCA.

1:19:18[snorts]

1:19:19Um, I have done

1:19:22considerable

1:19:24uh listening and outreach on this bill.

1:19:27We had a community listening session

1:19:29just last week. We had one two weeks

1:19:32before that. They were well attended.

1:19:35Um, and I have amendments here that I

1:19:37believe are responsive uh at least in

1:19:41part to some of the concerns that we

1:19:43heard. Um if you

1:19:48um look at the flyer that one person uh

1:19:52produced or some yard signs that

1:19:55somebody produced, the main um emphasis

1:20:00of uh

1:20:03the change that this would allow that

1:20:05faces opposition is the idea of a

1:20:08sixstory

1:20:10uh building that could go up next to

1:20:12your house. Uh I respect this concern

1:20:16and even though I think it's extremely

1:20:18unlikely

1:20:20uh that a six-story building would

1:20:23occur,

1:20:25um

1:20:27I have proposed amendments that would

1:20:29not allow that. Um I have an amendment

1:20:32here

1:20:34that rather than just pointing to the

1:20:38R10 standard. So the bill says in order

1:20:40to affect this idea that we could allow

1:20:42more housing on these neighborhood side

1:20:44streets, the first reader says

1:20:47regardless of whatever the underlying

1:20:49zoning is because we have a mix of I

1:20:51don't know some R1, R2, R3, R4 different

1:20:54things along Harbor Road. It says

1:20:56whatever regardless of what the

1:20:58underlying zoning is, multif family

1:21:00housing is allowed and it can be

1:21:02constructed to the R10 balkan yard

1:21:05standards which is the highest intensity

1:21:08residential uh zoning standard that we

1:21:11have. My amendment strikes that and sets

1:21:16a flat maximum height of 45 feet which

1:21:21is only one story or 10 ft taller than

1:21:24what is already allowed right now. So I

1:21:27think it's a modest gain.

1:21:29Um and uh it maintains all of the same

1:21:34setbacks. So, whatever the setback

1:21:37standards are in the underlying zoning

1:21:40district, five feet on the side lot line

1:21:42or 10 feet on the side lot line, uh

1:21:4740t or 30 feet or 25 ft on the front lot

1:21:51line,

1:21:54it maintains that um in a non-uniform

1:21:57fashion. And it it says that if it if

1:22:00it's an R3 property, you can build

1:22:02multif family and you can go up to 45

1:22:05ft, but you have to adhere to the same

1:22:08setback standards that everybody all the

1:22:10other properties already had. And um the

1:22:14only other diversion from that is about

1:22:16the maximum lot coverage uh allowing 60%

1:22:20lock coverage um instead of something

1:22:24much more intense under the R10

1:22:26standard. Um and so uh I hopefully this

1:22:32allays some concern for some people. Uh

1:22:35I'm certain that it will not allay all

1:22:37concern for all people.

1:22:39Um,

1:22:41that is the main amendment that I have.

1:22:44[snorts] And then the BMCA has

1:22:46amendments that uh we've just received

1:22:50that uh I guess they will speak to, but

1:22:52they are essentially transition

1:22:54provisions that relate to like if a

1:22:57property had an existing permit for use

1:23:01that might be at odds with the Harvard

1:23:03Road overlays changes. um that that use

1:23:08permit can continue. Um and if they're

1:23:12have building permits for construction

1:23:15then or permit applications in that

1:23:19those applications would be reviewed

1:23:21under the code that existed or exists uh

1:23:25prior to the establishment of the

1:23:27overlay district. Um

1:23:30before I um

1:23:33ask for questions,

1:23:36uh I will just

1:23:38address one other point of opposition

1:23:42that uh has come up again and again.

1:23:48Um and that is

1:23:50[snorts]

1:23:54colleagues. You're all familiar with the

1:23:56idea that

1:23:58somebody doesn't like something that

1:24:00you're proposing and they resort to uh

1:24:04sort of personal attacks and personal

1:24:05maligning. And one of the most um

1:24:10repeated things that I've heard in the

1:24:12course of uh discussion of this bill is

1:24:17why doesn't it apply to your

1:24:19neighborhood?

1:24:21Because I don't happen to live in one of

1:24:23the neighborhoods along the Harford Road

1:24:25commercial corridor. Now, if I lived in

1:24:29original Northwood or Hillen or Bair

1:24:34Edison or any other neighborhood in my

1:24:36district that doesn't have any frontage

1:24:40of that neighborhood along Harford Road,

1:24:43I'm not sure that folks would be saying

1:24:45this. Um, you know, if folk I don't

1:24:48think that folks are going to go, well,

1:24:50why aren't properties on Lock Raven

1:24:52Boulevard included in the Harford Road

1:24:54Overlay district? Right? The answer is

1:24:57in the question. My neighborhood,

1:24:59Mayfield, happens to be uh a

1:25:04neighborhood that that has some property

1:25:06frontage along Harford Road. The answer

1:25:09is this is that one, no study of Harford

1:25:14Road as a business corridor has ever

1:25:17looked at any footprint other than what

1:25:20I'm identifying here as the overlay

1:25:23area, the overlay district. The Harford

1:25:26Road Business Corridor very clearly, not

1:25:28in just my eyes, but in many others, is

1:25:31plainly the area extending north from

1:25:36Argon Drive or Parkside Drive, not south

1:25:38of there. Two, south of there is a city

1:25:44park with no buildings and no addresses

1:25:47for a half a mile,

1:25:50disconnecting it from any other

1:25:52neighborhoods to the south.

1:25:55That's a clear barrier and we're all

1:25:57familiar with those kind of barriers.

1:25:59Most city council districts have

1:26:00barriers like that that divide one part

1:26:02of a district from another. I have

1:26:04Morgan State that divides very different

1:26:06neighborhoods to its west from

1:26:08neighborhoods to its east. Uh in the

1:26:11seventh council district, um Druid Lake

1:26:14Park divides neighborhoods to its east

1:26:17and west uh making that are very

1:26:20different neighborhoods. Land barriers

1:26:22actually matter.

1:26:25Herring Run Park is a half a mile of

1:26:27park along Harford Road that very

1:26:30clearly delineates the Harford Roads

1:26:32commercial corridor. But if that's not

1:26:33enough, in my neighborhood in Mayfield,

1:26:36there is

1:26:384200

1:26:40linear feet of frontage along Harford

1:26:44Road for properties.

1:26:47210 of those feet are commercially

1:26:50zoned.

1:26:52They are the smallest commercial

1:26:54properties anywhere on Harford Road. Uh

1:26:57it's in fact only two properties.

1:27:00Two properties on that whole stretch of

1:27:03Harford Road are commercially zoned.

1:27:05Everything else is duplexes, single

1:27:09family detached homes, and row homes.

1:27:11There's never been any semblance of a

1:27:13commercial corridor. Never been any

1:27:16intention of one. Um whereas even

1:27:21the single family detached homes on

1:27:25Harford Road in the actual Harford Road

1:27:29commercial corridor of the Overlay

1:27:30District area are zoned C properties.

1:27:36None of the properties in my

1:27:38neighborhood have ever been zoned

1:27:40anything other than residential except

1:27:43for two properties that again make up

1:27:46210 ft of linear frontage out of the

1:27:504,200 ft of linear frontage. There is

1:27:53just no mistaking the difference between

1:27:56my neighborhood and the rest of the

1:27:59overlay.

1:28:01I am elected to represent all of my

1:28:05district and all of the neighborhoods,

1:28:08even outside of my own neighborhood.

1:28:10What kind of a city councilman would I

1:28:12be if I was only elected to make

1:28:14decisions about things that apply to the

1:28:17neighborhood that I live in?

1:28:20I'm here to steward better outcomes for

1:28:24the Harford Road commercial corridor,

1:28:26which has been struggling for

1:28:28essentially half a century at this

1:28:30point. I'm here to make the hard change

1:28:33that nobody else would make 20 years ago

1:28:36in the light of

1:28:38a strong report making these

1:28:40recommendations. And so I ask for your

1:28:42support on this bill today.

1:28:46>> Thank [clears throat] Thank you. Any

1:28:48questions from the committee directly to

1:28:51the sponsor? We are going to do agency

1:28:53reports and we'll start at the end with

1:28:56the councilman of the first district.

1:28:59>> Thank you, Madam Vice President. I thank

1:29:02you, Mr. Dorsey, for your description of

1:29:05everything and these amendments and the

1:29:06description of the amendments. My only

1:29:08question at this point um in looking at

1:29:11the uh the changes to use that will be

1:29:14allowed um in the overlay district um in

1:29:17general it's it's um it's moving towards

1:29:20a more permissive in terms of variety of

1:29:22uses but also the level of approval

1:29:24necessary uh for any given uses with one

1:29:28exception I was maybe it's an oversight

1:29:30uh but I wanted to mention it to you but

1:29:31if it's not I wanted to ask for an

1:29:33explanation which is um in the O1 one.

1:29:37Uh so the overlay residential areas um

1:29:40daycare center adult or child currently

1:29:42in residential districts um is a um

1:29:45condition conditional use sometimes or

1:29:47permitted use depending on which kind of

1:29:49our district it is. It's like a

1:29:50homebased daycare is what we're talking

1:29:52about. Um but it appears based on what I

1:29:55have in front of me that they would no

1:29:56longer be permitted at all. Uh childcare

1:29:59centers wouldn't be permitted at all in

1:30:01the O one uh overlay zoning. So maybe

1:30:06that's an oversight. If not, if it's

1:30:08deliberate, uh it just jumped out at me

1:30:09because everything else is moving

1:30:10towards a more robust dynamic uh

1:30:13commercial area. Thank you, Mr. Dorson.

1:30:18>> Thank you.

1:30:20Um I admit there's a possibility this is

1:30:23an oversight. I don't recall any

1:30:25deliberate uh intention on this.

1:30:30Happy to bring a floor amendment to

1:30:32address that.

1:30:35Okay.

1:30:36Um, moving on to the councilman of the

1:30:38eighth district. Did you have a

1:30:40question? Councilwoman of the 10th

1:30:44>> with with the agency reports. Okay. Yes.

1:30:47Councilman of the 11th district.

1:30:50>> Yeah. Um, thank you very much for

1:30:52introducing this bill. Um, Councilman,

1:30:55and I'll just second uh Council Member

1:30:57Parker's point about the daycarees.

1:30:58We've actually been having a lot of

1:31:00legislative conversations on making it

1:31:02easier to have daycarees in the city

1:31:03because I think we can all agree that

1:31:05>> that's important. We should have that.

1:31:06Yeah, child care is important uh and too

1:31:09expensive. Um the so that and I'll also

1:31:14just as a a brief comment um we've got a

1:31:17a area of my district that's about a

1:31:20almost 1 and a half mile radius circle

1:31:29managed to get uh a property owner to

1:31:31get an LOI with the grocery store. I was

1:31:33kind of involved in that effort and I

1:31:35asked the grocery store that hopefully

1:31:38will be coming in, you know, what made

1:31:39you decide to to come in, like what was

1:31:42the reason for you taking this risk

1:31:44here? Um, and they said it's got the

1:31:48population density and he even said

1:31:50explicitly like it doesn't it's not

1:31:51quite the income level that we typically

1:31:54have, but it's it's the population

1:31:56density is there uh to make it make

1:31:58sense. So on something that in my

1:32:01district is which has plenty of its own

1:32:04commercial corridor challenges. Um

1:32:07literally just had this conversation

1:32:08very recently. So I it makes sense that

1:32:11the 2008 report and all these everything

1:32:14that we know about commercial corridors

1:32:15that is very important there. So thank

1:32:17you.

1:32:17>> Yeah thank you. Harford Road, it's got

1:32:20all these really strong indicators or

1:32:22traditionally strong indicators um about

1:32:26income levels um you know low extreme

1:32:30low vacancy

1:32:32uh in among the residential properties,

1:32:34right? I mean there's a real disconnect

1:32:35when you've got less than 1% residential

1:32:38vacancy and you've got 10% commercial

1:32:40vacancy.

1:32:42You know, something is a miss. Um and uh

1:32:46but you know income levels, education

1:32:49levels, uh vehicle access rates, all

1:32:52these things that are traditionally very

1:32:55strong indicators of what should be a

1:32:57prosperous area um are still

1:33:01insufficient to bring about the kind of

1:33:04commercial corridor results. It makes me

1:33:06think uh just generally like we're we're

1:33:11either a suburb trying to be a city or

1:33:15we're a city trying to be a suburb.

1:33:18Basically, Harford Road would work if we

1:33:21reduced the whole of the commercial

1:33:23corridor to a few blocks and made

1:33:27everything else massive sprawling

1:33:29parking lots so that it was a purely car

1:33:32oriented uh suburban strip mall

1:33:35destination. Uh but I don't think that

1:33:37that's what people want. And so the

1:33:39alternative to that is making it an

1:33:42actually uh more urban like environment.

1:33:45you just there's not really a functional

1:33:47in between uh that I know anywhere.

1:33:53>> Any further questions to the sponsor? I

1:33:57just want to add I you uh as you were

1:33:59speaking you proudly talked about the

1:34:02different all the diff gave us a

1:34:04subnopsis of all the different areas

1:34:07that your district represents and um how

1:34:12many years have you served your

1:34:15district?

1:34:15>> This is my 10th year.

1:34:17>> Okay. I just kind of wanted to make that

1:34:19a matter of record because um

1:34:22uh you know we have some members that

1:34:24are new and some members that have uh

1:34:27length like you and um when we're

1:34:31elected we're relied on

1:34:35um making decisions

1:34:38as you said for our total district but

1:34:43we know how to start improvements

1:34:46>> based on Um, and a lot of that has to do

1:34:49with our experience and longevity.

1:34:51>> If I could add one last thing is, um,

1:34:55I've been here long enough that this

1:34:57ain't my first showdown with just this

1:35:00bill. And so, let me acknowledge that

1:35:02because you'll probably hear about that

1:35:03from others, too. Uh, at the end of last

1:35:06term, we passed the Harford Road Overlay

1:35:09District.

1:35:11Um, there was a deficiency of notice.

1:35:14There was a legal challenge to that and

1:35:18the court made two findings in favor of

1:35:22the plaintiffs. So the folks seeking to

1:35:25strike down the law. It made two

1:35:26findings. One that the people filing the

1:35:29case did have standing

1:35:32and without which they would not have

1:35:35been able to even pursue finding number

1:35:37two. that those people were supposed to

1:35:41have been mailed something at their

1:35:43house to give them notice

1:35:45and we didn't mail them. Uh I received

1:35:49bad advice

1:35:51um

1:35:53about this. Um, and we did a notice that

1:35:57was

1:35:59similar to or the notice that you would

1:36:02have to do for an urban renewal plan,

1:36:06not the notice that is required for a

1:36:09comprehensive resoning.

1:36:11Uh, what this is is uh it meets the city

1:36:14code's definition of a comprehensive

1:36:16resoning. And so we have now done the

1:36:19notice required for that. We've done the

1:36:21posting. We've done the newspaper. We've

1:36:23done um 1,800

1:36:27pieces of mail, [clears throat] one sent

1:36:30to each individual property owner uh

1:36:33along within the within the entire

1:36:36footprint of the overlay area. Um and so

1:36:41it's unfortunate that we didn't get it

1:36:42right the first time, but we've got it

1:36:44right the second time on the notice. And

1:36:46the notice is the only reason that the

1:36:48court struck this down. Everything else

1:36:50about the bill is legal. Thank you.

1:36:53>> Thank you. And now as you come back to

1:36:56your seat in your role as chair,

1:37:00we'll just take a 10-minute recess.

1:37:05>> 10 second I mean 10 second, not 10

1:37:09minute.

1:37:10[laughter]

1:37:16>> Uh yeah. No, it's not.

1:37:25Okay, 10 seconds is up. Thank you, Madam

1:37:28Vice Chair.

1:37:31Um, we will go to

1:37:34agency reports.

1:37:37Um, law department.

1:37:41>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. The law department

1:37:43approves reform form and [clears throat]

1:37:45legal sufficiency with amendments.

1:37:48>> Thank you. Um

1:37:53the Department of Finance.

1:37:56>> Good morning, Mara James for the

1:37:58Department of Finance. We stand by our

1:37:59report. We support this legislation. We

1:38:01anticipate that there could be uh

1:38:03revenue impacts for the city, increased

1:38:06property tax and income revenue from

1:38:08these zoning changes.

1:38:09>> Thank you.

1:38:11uh housing community development.

1:38:15>> Thank you, Chair Dorsey. Jason Wright

1:38:17representing DHCD. We respectfully stand

1:38:19behind our favorable bill report. Thank

1:38:20you.

1:38:20>> Thank you. Transportation.

1:38:23>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Luciano, the S for

1:38:25DoD. We have no recommendation on the

1:38:28bill.

1:38:29>> Thank you. BDC is not here.

1:38:32>> Uh good morning. Uh uh Mr. Chair, BDC

1:38:35stands by its favorable report. Trey

1:38:37Hayes from the mayor's office.

1:38:38>> Thank you. Planning Commission.

1:38:41>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the Planning

1:38:42Commission, they reviewed this bill in

1:38:44their public meeting of January 16th

1:38:46where they recommended amendment and

1:38:47approval. And I believe the one uh minor

1:38:49amendment that they had regarding um

1:38:51alternative energy systems has been

1:38:53included in uh your amendments.

1:38:56>> Yes. Thank you.

1:38:59>> There was

1:39:04BMCA.

1:39:06Thank you.

1:39:07>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, BMCA is

1:39:10favorable with amendments and we

1:39:12apologize for the late submission of the

1:39:14amendments. Happy to to summarize them

1:39:16if you'd like.

1:39:17>> Um, if you'd like. Yeah, sure.

1:39:19>> Okay. Um, we proposed um a transition

1:39:23rule. Uh, we understand there's an

1:39:25existing transition rule in the code

1:39:27under 2203.

1:39:30Um, those are handling grandfathered

1:39:32cases and this is kind of a unique

1:39:34circumstance where the ordinance was

1:39:36struck down. So it's as though it never

1:39:39existed. Uh we estimate there probably a

1:39:43very small number of cases about 6 to 12

1:39:46um permits that were granted under the

1:39:49now invalidated ordinance. Um, and we're

1:39:52also looking at um approvals and grants

1:39:55under that invalidated ordinance and

1:39:57those that were granted after July 22nd,

1:40:002026 that we'd continue to treat those

1:40:03as non-conforming uses. And also looking

1:40:06at um pending applications that could be

1:40:10reviewed under the current law or opt to

1:40:12be reviewed under this ordinance if and

1:40:15when it takes effect. And this would

1:40:18just give clear guidance to to the board

1:40:19and the zoning administrator on how to

1:40:21treat this small number of cases.

1:40:24>> Great. Thank you. And did I see that

1:40:25this is um basically the same as the

1:40:28amendment recommended by BDC?

1:40:30>> Um maybe.

1:40:32>> Yeah, I think the BDC was also

1:40:34recommending this um

1:40:38transition provision.

1:40:41Colleagues, committee members, any

1:40:42questions for any of the city agencies?

1:40:47Um okay. Uh and I just again I will just

1:40:52make sure I reviewed my own amendments

1:40:55here adequately.

1:40:58Um, amendment tw one is just the uh

1:41:03changes to

1:41:05the

1:41:08title, the long form title of the bill

1:41:13as well as striking references to

1:41:17obsolete provisions. This bill was

1:41:22introduced

1:41:24prior to the enactment of the ordinance

1:41:28that we passed last year

1:41:31um pertaining to off- streetet parking

1:41:34minimums. Um, and so the first reader

1:41:37copy still has language in it pertaining

1:41:40to that says there are no off- streetet

1:41:42parking minimums and added the Harford

1:41:44Road overlay to a the list of things

1:41:47that are that were already exempted and

1:41:50now it's not necessary and so all the

1:41:52language in here pertaining to off-

1:41:53streetet parking stuff is removed uh as

1:41:56it's um a moot point. Um table

1:42:02amendment two um is the

1:42:07replacement of the reference to R10

1:42:10multif family standards with the table

1:42:12as I described it allowing for up to 45

1:42:15ft in height 60% lot coverage and

1:42:18otherwise adhering to the minimum uh lot

1:42:22size standards

1:42:24in uh or the the setback standards

1:42:28rather for uh whatever the underlying

1:42:31zoning districts uh would be for the

1:42:33residential properties uh when uh used

1:42:36for multifamily purpose.

1:42:39Um amendment three addresses law

1:42:43department concerns related to uh

1:42:46language in the bill about curb cuts. Um

1:42:50and amendment four um aligns this bill

1:42:56with

1:42:57the other bill that Councilman Torrance

1:43:00and I have uh establishing a definition

1:43:03of grocery stores. Um, so this sort of

1:43:07anticipates the passage of that bill and

1:43:09adds grocery stores into the table of

1:43:13allowed uses uh in the commercial areas

1:43:16um so that we don't have to amend that

1:43:18table later on. Um and

1:43:22the uh amendment five is uh a

1:43:29minor amendment changing from permitted

1:43:33to conditional by board. Uh as uh

1:43:38following the recommendation of the

1:43:40planning commission for uh energy what

1:43:44is it called Eric?

1:43:47alternative energy uh facilities.

1:43:51Um okay,

1:43:54Vice Chair Middleton,

1:43:56>> and then I you're going to add I guess

1:43:58listening to uh the councilman of

1:44:01district 1 and you're going to add a

1:44:04child care.

1:44:04>> Yeah, I'll get that for second reader.

1:44:06>> Okay,

1:44:07>> thank you. Yeah.

1:44:09Um okay, we have a number of people

1:44:12signed up for public testimony. I'm

1:44:14going to uh just review this signin

1:44:18sheet here real quick and then start

1:44:21calling on folks

1:44:23>> calling two or three at a time.

1:44:26>> Okay.

1:44:38Okay. Uh we will start with I'm going to

1:44:41call people two or three at a time just

1:44:44because we have um some people that are

1:44:47actually outside of the room and if

1:44:49somebody who knows them needs to go get

1:44:51them or something or if they need to

1:44:53make their way in here I guess if they

1:44:55can hear us from in the other room if

1:44:56they're watching in there then they can

1:44:58make their way over here. So, first

1:45:00we'll go to Jod Landers and then Georgia

1:45:02Corso. Uh, and then third will be uh I

1:45:06can't read the first name, but the last

1:45:08name looks like Mills. Um,

1:45:12and

1:45:14uh, folks giving testimony will have two

1:45:18minutes.

1:45:23Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before I begin my

1:45:25testimony, I want to go on public record

1:45:27of saying I object to the chairman

1:45:30presiding over this public hearing

1:45:32because he is both a sponsor and the

1:45:35primary applicant for this bill

1:45:38that shouldn't be things you need to

1:45:41know about this bill. This is basically

1:45:44the same bill that residents and

1:45:46neighbors successfully challenged in

1:45:48court that was nullified because

1:45:50Councilman Dorsy ignored the law and

1:45:53hastily pushed the bill through the

1:45:55council. The overlay extends more than

1:45:582.9 miles along Harford Road and covers

1:46:02more than 375

1:46:05acres. To put this in perspective,

1:46:08Disneyland and the Adventure Land Park

1:46:11combined cover 172 acres. So, this bill

1:46:16is an audacious undertaking. It includes

1:46:20more than 1,200 residential properties,

1:46:23most of which are currently zoned low

1:46:26density R3. They'll all be upzzoned to

1:46:30allow R10 multi-story high density

1:46:34development. The chart below on what I

1:46:36passed out shows the dramatic difference

1:46:39between what's permitted under R3 versus

1:46:42R10. So perhaps you can understand why

1:46:45the majority of residents in and a

1:46:48bordering the overlay oppose it. Every

1:46:50neighborhood along Harford Road is

1:46:52included except for the neighborhood

1:46:54where Councilman Dorsy and his family

1:46:56own a home. He says it's because the

1:46:58park separates it. The truth is the

1:47:01opposite side of Harford Road isn't even

1:47:03in his district. It's in Councilwoman

1:47:05Ramos's district. So, he's relying on

1:47:08her and other council members under

1:47:10council manic courtesy to support this

1:47:13bill. That's a dramatic assault on our

1:47:15neighborhood. This bill is legally

1:47:19flawed in many other significant ways.

1:47:21Key among them is the fact that it

1:47:24doesn't comply with the basic legal

1:47:26definition of an overlay district. None

1:47:28of the information in the notices that

1:47:31Councilman Dory Dorsy submitted even

1:47:34mention R10 zoning and there's been no

1:47:37recent study of this and no findings of

1:47:41fact.

1:47:41>> Thank you, Mr. Landers. You're talking

1:47:43>> last point. Tragically, if the council

1:47:45insists on blindly going forward with

1:47:48this flawed measure out of a misguided

1:47:50sense of council courtesy, it will leave

1:47:53the residents with no choice but to once

1:47:56again challenge it in court, but this

1:47:59time on a much broader legal scale.

1:48:02Thank you,

1:48:05M. Corso.

1:48:14I moved to Laraveville in 1972 and

1:48:18bought my first piece of property in

1:48:211974.

1:48:22I was the president of the Laraveville

1:48:25Improvement Association and we worked

1:48:27diligently to try to keep the number of

1:48:32rentals

1:48:34where they were and not allow any more

1:48:37rentals because our area was fairly

1:48:39saturated.

1:48:42They keep minimizing the number of

1:48:45properties. I have sat down 500 ft but

1:48:50there's two sides to the street. So,

1:48:52it's a,000 ft. And the street goes

1:48:55across Harford Road on both directions.

1:48:58So, it's 2,000 ft per street. I have

1:49:02measured it out. It's over seven miles

1:49:06of properties. If you lined them up,

1:49:10seven miles of impacted residential

1:49:14properties that will be victimized by

1:49:19wealthy developers.

1:49:22These developers of course will be very

1:49:24ingratiated to everybody who is

1:49:27supporting this bill.

1:49:30And

1:49:32we used to call we well we still do

1:49:34Laraveville country in the city because

1:49:37we enjoy

1:49:39the

1:49:41relaxed environment. We don't want all

1:49:45this density. You need density downtown

1:49:50in Little Italy and other neighborhoods

1:49:53where they have huge apartment buildings

1:49:56that can't fill the vacancies and

1:49:58they're going up on the auction block.

1:50:01That's where you need your density. We

1:50:04don't want the density and we don't

1:50:06understand why Councilman Dorsy

1:50:10continues to think that that's what we

1:50:12need.

1:50:14>> We don't.

1:50:15>> Thank you.

1:50:18Uh, Mr. and Mrs. Mills. Oh, Miss Mills.

1:50:21Hi.

1:50:26>> Hi. I'm Marietta Mills. I live in

1:50:29Larville and I have been there forever.

1:50:32Okay. Many people will tell me they've

1:50:35lived there for 35 or 40 years and I

1:50:38call them newcomers. So, you just need

1:50:40to know. I will tell you that we have a

1:50:44very stable community of people who have

1:50:49chosen to live there the way they do

1:50:52because they enjoy the area. They pay

1:50:56the taxes. They support their neighbors.

1:50:59They take care of their property. And

1:51:02they're not interested in having

1:51:04somebody come in tear up some of the old

1:51:08houses to turn them into multiple

1:51:10apartments. simply to feed rental agents

1:51:14who frequently wouldn't be living there.

1:51:17And we have that in other areas of the

1:51:20city. We're very concerned about it. But

1:51:23I will also say that within this bill,

1:51:27there's no allowance for people to be

1:51:30notified if there is going to be a

1:51:32change, if somebody's going to be

1:51:34building something, if they're going to

1:51:36be changing something. There's no

1:51:38notification of anyone in the

1:51:40neighborhood. There's no appeal process.

1:51:43So, if you sit in a wonderful light home

1:51:48that you love and suddenly somebody

1:51:50comes along and they say, "Well, we

1:51:52bought it. We're going to tear it down.

1:51:54We're going to build

1:51:57apartments."

1:51:58And you say, "Well, wait a minute. I

1:52:02didn't hear anything about that." No,

1:52:03you didn't and you won't. And there's

1:52:05nothing you can do about it.

1:52:07So, I would encourage you to think about

1:52:09how you would feel if this was in your

1:52:12neighborhood and next to you or down the

1:52:16street from you, how you would like it

1:52:18because I don't think you'd be happy to

1:52:20sit there and just say, "Oh, it's all

1:52:21fine. Whatever you want to do is fine

1:52:24because it's not." Thanks so much.

1:52:27>> Thank you, Mills. Um, I should have

1:52:29called some other folks just so they

1:52:31could tee up, but we have Miles, Jeff,

1:52:34and then John Murphy, then Lynn Miles.

1:52:43>> Hi, Jeff Miles. I have

1:52:45>> Okay, mic.

1:52:46>> Is it on?

1:52:47>> Yep.

1:52:48>> I've owned a home in Hamilton now for

1:52:50it'll be 40 years next year.

1:52:53And when I had a real estate agent show

1:52:55me the home 40 years ago, it was touted

1:52:59as one of the great neighborhoods. I'm

1:53:01going to go back on your own words. Your

1:53:03own words were, "We are not a

1:53:05Baltimoreish or Baltimore neighborhood

1:53:08because we don't meet the form. The form

1:53:10is like 40% rentals." Okay? We're 90%

1:53:14homeowners.

1:53:16How many people in America want to live

1:53:19in a community that's over 90%

1:53:22homeowners?

1:53:23Do you have any idea the value you have

1:53:26there with what we've invested in the

1:53:28neighborhood and now you want to tear it

1:53:30down for apartments?

1:53:33The reason everybody wants to live in

1:53:35Hamilton is because you don't have

1:53:36apartments. The reason everybody wants

1:53:38to buy in Hamilton is because it is

1:53:41beautiful side streets. It's beautiful

1:53:43homes. Neighbors have swimming pools,

1:53:45kids. I was just helping a neighbor

1:53:47learn how to ride a bike a few weeks

1:53:48ago. Okay, there's children playing in

1:53:50the streets. This is a great

1:53:52neighborhood. It is not your apartment

1:53:54complexes. Okay, I don't know why

1:53:59you all even voted on this the first

1:54:01time. I don't know what you're thinking.

1:54:05You look at the demographics and say 90%

1:54:07home ownership. You should be screaming,

1:54:10"How do I get that? How do I achieve

1:54:12that in my community? And instead,

1:54:15you're saying, "I'm going to back you,

1:54:16Ryan, and we're going to turn it into

1:54:18apartments."

1:54:21Please, what are you thinking?

1:54:26You're taking one of the established

1:54:27neighborhoods that has individual homes,

1:54:3190% home ownership. You know, those

1:54:34individuals are investing in the

1:54:36community and you want to change it

1:54:39because the businesses on Harford Road

1:54:41aren't doing good. I didn't buy a house

1:54:43on Harford Road. I didn't buy a house to

1:54:47make Harford Road a better business

1:54:49district. I bought my house because the

1:54:52way it was marketed to [music] me.

1:54:54>> Thank you, Mr.

1:54:55>> Which it totally filled.

1:54:56>> Thank you, Mr. Miles.

1:54:59>> For the love of God, think of what

1:55:00you're doing. John Murphy and then Lynn

1:55:02Miles and then Jasmine Alustin.

1:55:18>> Thank you.

1:55:28>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the

1:55:30committee,

1:55:34I'd like to make one point.

1:55:37I'd like everybody to understand this.

1:55:39If you don't have any don't understand

1:55:41it, ask me a question.

1:55:44This is an overlay zone.

1:55:48The chairman was quite clear on the

1:55:51purpose of it. It's to

1:55:55increase the density of the areas along

1:55:59Harford Road to change the density.

1:56:03There's no doubt about that. He's quite

1:56:05clear on that. That's the purpose.

1:56:09The problem with that is it's a legal

1:56:11matter.

1:56:14The overlay zone

1:56:17in the code says that it maintains

1:56:22the

1:56:25general character and purpose of the

1:56:29underlying zoning district.

1:56:32There's no question in the world that

1:56:36the purpose of the underlying zoning

1:56:39district for the most part here is

1:56:43detached single family zoning.

1:56:51The purpose here is to change that.

1:56:54That means that it's contrary to the

1:56:57code which says that an overlay zone

1:57:02maintains the character and purpose of

1:57:06the underlying zoning district.

1:57:11We have to follow the code. The first

1:57:15bill put in

1:57:18did not follow the code. We had to go to

1:57:21court to invalidate it.

1:57:24This bill does not follow the code. The

1:57:29code says maintain the general character

1:57:33and purpose.

1:57:36You can you can dislike the single

1:57:39family zone. You can attack it and say

1:57:43it's not proper. There's no question but

1:57:46that its purpose is to maintain the

1:57:50single family.

1:57:52This is contrary then to the code.

1:57:56>> Thank you, Mr. Murphy.

1:57:57>> It has the same deficiency that the

1:57:59first bill had.

1:58:00>> Thank you, Mr. Murphy.

1:58:01>> Thank you very much.

1:58:12>> Um,

1:58:14who have we got? Lynn Miles, then

1:58:16Jasmine Alustin.

1:58:31Um, can everybody hear me with the mask

1:58:33on?

1:58:33>> Yes.

1:58:34>> Am I clear? Okay. Um, thank you for

1:58:36having me. Um,

1:58:40and hello, chair, councilman. In a

1:58:44community with over 80% homeowner

1:58:46owners, it has been touted and promoted

1:58:49as a sought-after community by many real

1:58:52estate agencies, including Zeil. That

1:58:55could be drastically changed if this

1:58:57bill is passed. There should not be a

1:58:59car blanch zoning for such an extensive

1:59:02area. Each building should be zoned

1:59:06individually for its particular use. A

1:59:08building doesn't determine who moves

1:59:10into it. What determines occupancy of

1:59:13the space it and how it's zoned? It goes

1:59:16to the realtor and owner. So once you

1:59:18guys say okay, then it falls to the

1:59:21owner and the realtor as to who actually

1:59:24moves in there. So unless there's an

1:59:27existing allegiance with an entity, it

1:59:30would then be out of your control who

1:59:32would build on the overlay and it would

1:59:35be the the result of the community that

1:59:38would literally have to deal with these

1:59:39changes. When you try to force a lot of

1:59:42people in an area, it weakens the

1:59:45structure. And I can tell you that every

1:59:47few weeks Baltimore City is tearing up

1:59:49the streets to address plumbing. During

1:59:51storms, we have power outages. Water and

1:59:54electric are vital to every

1:59:56neighborhood. Exponentially increasing

1:59:58that use could ne negatively impact

2:00:01current as well as future residents. And

2:00:03this needs to be noted as well as

2:00:05addressed, especially considering the

2:00:07amount of people that oppose this bill

2:00:10in our community. According to

2:00:12triplei.com, permut

2:00:14property damages

2:00:17um are from rental

2:00:20are accounted 97.8%

2:00:22um homeowners insurance claims are due

2:00:25to renters. So, not only could parking

2:00:28or crime be a problem, but homeowners

2:00:30insurance could also increase in the

2:00:32communities that are affected.

2:00:35If it's a matter of building up the

2:00:36corridor, perhaps grants, small

2:00:39businesses um to [music] rent Harford

2:00:42Road and maybe tax and reliefs um could

2:00:46go to the owners. Density is not the

2:00:49issue. Places like Hampton, for example,

2:00:51have patrons that come all over. They're

2:00:54not just people from the Hampton

2:00:56neighborhoods. What happens is

2:01:00um they they need we need parking and we

2:01:03need sidewalks. We have a beautiful

2:01:05community with a suburban feel.

2:01:07Transform Baltimore on Baltimore.com.

2:01:11I need to move on to the next person.

2:01:12Modern code that fosters growthvel.

2:01:18>> Thank you, Miss Miles. This bill will

2:01:21not maintain the character of this

2:01:23Baltimore neighborhood. Only

2:01:26[music]

2:01:35>> next up is Jasmine Al.

2:01:40>> Okay, if Miss Alustin doesn't want to

2:01:42come up, I will go on to the next

2:01:44person.

2:01:47Her

2:01:47>> microphone is already on.

2:01:50your mic.

2:01:52>> Thank you, Miss Miss Alustin,

2:01:59>> Miss Alustin.

2:02:01>> Uh, hit the button on the right side of

2:02:03the microphone there.

2:02:05>> There you go.

2:02:06>> Hello. My name is Jasmine Alustin. Uh,

2:02:08and I'm a resident within the overlay

2:02:10zone and I would like to say

2:02:11emphatically that I am against this bill

2:02:14and I hope that you will not support it.

2:02:16I'm against this bill because there's an

2:02:18absence of a community impact study and

2:02:21I think that that is very important. We

2:02:24need to understand how this spike in

2:02:27density will impact several areas within

2:02:31our community. And when I say that, I

2:02:32mean there are current issues with

2:02:35water, sewer, electrical problems. We

2:02:37have road maintenance issues. There is

2:02:39trash. We have documented hazards at our

2:02:42intersections. There are significant

2:02:44parking issues. I mean, my fridge dies

2:02:47every single time it rains hard. That's

2:02:49a problem. When my car died, it took me

2:02:52from 15 minutes to get to my job by car

2:02:54to an hour and a half to two hours

2:02:57taking the bus. That's ridiculous. And

2:02:59so, what does it look like when you

2:03:01massively increase the number of people

2:03:03living within the community using all of

2:03:05those same services? We talk about the

2:03:07importance of child care, but what about

2:03:08the importance of child safety and

2:03:10community safety? What data shows how

2:03:13our local schools, the emergency

2:03:14services, the police force will

2:03:17accommodate this projected spike in

2:03:20density in our community?

2:03:23What independent studies have been done

2:03:25to look at traffic and to look at

2:03:26transportation?

2:03:30I would also like to highlight that

2:03:31there's been a lack of meaningful

2:03:33community input where this is concerned.

2:03:35the timeline of what has been really

2:03:38non-existent in community engagement. It

2:03:40just really highlights that our voices

2:03:43are not being heard and that they're

2:03:45really an afterthought in this process

2:03:46and that is deeply unfortunate. Um

2:03:50there are several neighbors that I have

2:03:52who are still unaware. We go door to

2:03:54door. We're trying to make sure that

2:03:55folks who are in and outside of the

2:03:57district know what's happening. That is

2:03:59not our job, but as community members,

2:04:02we're concerned and we want to make sure

2:04:03that people are aware of what's

2:04:05happening.

2:04:08I'm sorry, is my time up. [music]

2:04:10>> Thank you, Miss Austin.

2:04:13>> I would like to just point out one more

2:04:15thing that

2:04:18we love our communities. We are not

2:04:20against renters. We want diversity and

2:04:23housing across the city. We realize that

2:04:25there are things that make each of the

2:04:27neighborhoods that have been mentioned

2:04:28today unique and we have what is it less

2:04:31than 1%

2:04:32um vacancy that means we're doing

2:04:34something right.

2:04:36So we want to work with this body. We

2:04:39want to work with Councilman [music]

2:04:40Dorsy and improve the overlay district

2:04:43but we feel like we should also be at

2:04:45the table and talking about what that

2:04:46looks like. Please push for a study.

2:04:48Please do not support this bill. Please

2:04:50include community impact when this

2:04:52decision is made.

2:04:53>> Thank you. Thank you.

2:04:54>> Uh Wayne Carson

2:04:56and then Charles Ross.

2:04:59Wayne Carson. Then Charles Ross.

2:05:09My name is Wayne Carson and I'm a

2:05:11lifelong resident of Baltimore City. I'm

2:05:14here today to ask you to vote no on

2:05:16council bill 250093,

2:05:20the Harford Road overlay. I'm in the

2:05:22proposed overlay zone and have been and

2:05:25have been for the past 45 years. I feel

2:05:28that a change in zoning from R3 single

2:05:31family detached housing to R10, which is

2:05:34the highest density zoning permitted

2:05:36under the zoning code would be a

2:05:38betrayal to those of us that live

2:05:41adjacent to Harford Road.

2:05:44If this bill were to pass, my

2:05:46neighborhood, my neighbors could sell

2:05:48their home to a developer who could put

2:05:50up a four-story building which could

2:05:53cover 60% of their property with the

2:05:55amendment

2:05:57which could be built all well, all this

2:06:00was written out before the amendments

2:06:02were said, so I'll skip that part. Um,

2:06:05given the size of the property, which is

2:06:079,750

2:06:09square ft, they could cover 5800 square

2:06:12ft, our zoning requires a minimum of 200

2:06:16square ft per dwelling unit.

2:06:19That means that there could be more than

2:06:2020 units at ground level. Take that to

2:06:23four stories, you're talking about more

2:06:25than 80 units.

2:06:28This is not to say that this would

2:06:29happen, only that if this bill were to

2:06:32pass, it could happen.

2:06:35by right without any hearing or appeal

2:06:37to the process. This would have a

2:06:40detrimental effect on property values of

2:06:43all nearby properties.

2:06:46I find the reasons that Councilman

2:06:48Dorsey chose to not include his

2:06:50neighborhood

2:06:52ring hollow and disingenuous.

2:06:56If the purpose is to create density,

2:06:59then density on all of Harford Road

2:07:01would benefit the commercial corridor,

2:07:03regardless of whether it's right next to

2:07:05the commercial corridor. I'm asking you

2:07:07to forgo council manic courtesy on this

2:07:10issue and not approve this bill. Thank

2:07:13you.

2:07:13>> Thank you, Charles Ross.

2:07:17And then John Echenro.

2:07:20>> Good morning, everyone. My name is

2:07:21Charles Ross. I am a proud Baltimoreian,

2:07:25longtime resident of Laraveville. I'm

2:07:28here to oppose this bill, make three

2:07:30points. I'd like to thank all of my

2:07:32neighbors who came out today in support

2:07:34of this. I mean to oppose this. Number

2:07:37one, continuous opposition from the

2:07:40community about this. The community is

2:07:44continuing to come out to say we are

2:07:46opposed to this. So, I'd like that to be

2:07:48noted. The second, we are unique. My

2:07:52neighbors have already spoken about

2:07:54that. What makes Baltimore so special in

2:07:59part is our communities. Your

2:08:01neighborhoods, your neighborhoods, your

2:08:03neighborhoods, they're all unique.

2:08:05That's why the charm of Charm City comes

2:08:08from. Our community along Harford Road

2:08:12is unique for its own reasons. And as my

2:08:15neighbors have spoken, that's why we

2:08:17have all chosen to move there. And

2:08:20finally,

2:08:21anyone who's driven up along the Harford

2:08:23Road corridor recently has experienced

2:08:26the congestion that already exists.

2:08:30If this overlay is successful, that will

2:08:32that problem will only worsen. So with

2:08:35that, I would just ask that you would

2:08:37all oppose this measure. Thank you.

2:08:40>> Thank you, John Echenro.

2:08:47>> [clears throat]

2:08:48>> and then John Rhodess.

2:08:54Good morning. Uh my name is John Ekenro.

2:08:57I'm here today as a private citizen

2:08:59expressing my own personal views and not

2:09:03representing any organization.

2:09:05>> John, maybe pull the mic down a little

2:09:07bit. There you go.

2:09:09>> Okay. Yeah. Again, my name is John

2:09:11Ekenro. here is I'm here as Whoops.

2:09:20Like I say, I'm I'm here speaking my own

2:09:22personal views. I'm not representing any

2:09:24organization. For the most part, I can

2:09:26only echo the arguments of previous

2:09:28speakers who have testified in

2:09:29opposition to uh bill 250093

2:09:33today.

2:09:34I can say that while I have lived I live

2:09:37a few blocks outside of the proposed

2:09:39overlay zone, I know many people who

2:09:41live just off Harford Road who have uh

2:09:45who are very concerned about how this

2:09:47proposed zoning would affect their

2:09:48quality of life in terms of increased

2:09:51congestion, busy streets, parking

2:09:53problems, and infrastructure issues.

2:09:56When my wife and I when my wife and I

2:09:59first moved to this neighborhood 5 years

2:10:01ago, we were attracted to the quiet

2:10:03streets, single family houses, large

2:10:05yards, and easy parking. When we were

2:10:08when we were shopping for a house, the

2:10:10real estate agent kept trying to steer

2:10:12us to Baltimore County. I insisted that

2:10:15we um I knew there were houses in

2:10:18Baltimore City, in neighborhoods in

2:10:21Baltimore City that had just the

2:10:23qualities that we were looking for. I

2:10:25fear that the passage of this bill would

2:10:27jeopardize the very qualities that

2:10:28attracted us and our neighbors to this

2:10:31area. For these reasons, I encourage the

2:10:34council to vote no on council bill

2:10:37250093.

2:10:39Thank you.

2:10:40>> Thank you,

2:10:42John Rhodess.

2:10:44And then

2:10:46David Richardson will be next.

2:10:50>> Thank you. Um my name is John Roots. I'm

2:10:54a resident of Hamilton Hills for 23

2:10:57years. Both my wife and myself have

2:11:00served on our Hamilton the neighborhood

2:11:02association. We served on Nolgi. We

2:11:05multiple boards. We volunteer. We're

2:11:07deeply invested in the neighborhood. I'm

2:11:09here in opposition to this bill.

2:11:17What I would say is, you know, we're not

2:11:20urban planners, but we live here on in

2:11:23the neighborhood. We walk on Harford

2:11:25Road. We drive on Hartford Road. We shop

2:11:28on Harford Road. We see the practical

2:11:31effects of the development of on Harford

2:11:35Road. We we we see the traffic patterns.

2:11:38We're concerned.

2:11:40Um I'm sorry. I'm very nervous. So, I'm

2:11:42just going to jump read right in so I

2:11:43can get this straight. Um,

2:11:50so what we're seeing is what we're

2:11:52concerned I'm echoing the concerns of

2:11:53everyone else here is that we're

2:11:55concerned with the density. The

2:11:57infrastructure is not going to be able

2:11:59to support it. We ask that no further

2:12:02action be taken on this bill until

2:12:05there's a independent audit of the the

2:12:08infrastructure

2:12:10and the community is brought in to the

2:12:13conversation.

2:12:15Thank you.

2:12:17>> Thank you, David Richardson.

2:12:23>> And then Richard Oaks.

2:12:26>> My name is David Richardson. I'm a

2:12:28resident of uh Lurville. I've been for

2:12:32about 21 years and I've seen a lot of

2:12:34changes in the neighborhood over the

2:12:36years and a lot of improvements. And I

2:12:39think uh at some point there were things

2:12:41that were involved in the disappearance

2:12:45of businesses that didn't have anything

2:12:47to do with density. They had to do with

2:12:50the choice of business ideas and

2:12:53business practices of the business

2:12:56owners and the economy at the particular

2:13:00time when certain types of businesses

2:13:04were no longer viable. So we see some

2:13:07storefronts go empty because um film

2:13:10photography is not so popular anymore.

2:13:14other other businesses change because we

2:13:19have uh big box stores. So, we don't

2:13:22need a hardware store on Harford Road.

2:13:26So, I'm opposed to this bill because

2:13:28it's very speculative that just bringing

2:13:31a large number of people into a

2:13:33neighborhood um with no overall

2:13:38planning. I have a background in urban

2:13:40planning and there's a lot more involved

2:13:43in planning for development than just

2:13:45having apartment buildings, crowded

2:13:48areas um and trying to promote a

2:13:52neighborhood

2:13:54in the opposite dimension of what it was

2:13:56originally. Like if you start saying we

2:13:59want people to move to Harford Road,

2:14:01we're going to build highrises. We want

2:14:03people to move to Laurelville. will

2:14:05build a neighborhood that is totally

2:14:07different from what you see in front of

2:14:08your eyes when you get there. When I

2:14:10moved there, it was a beautiful

2:14:12neighborhood. It had very interesting

2:14:14stores, record shops, it had photography

2:14:18stores. It had all sorts of things that

2:14:20are not really viable today. So, what

2:14:23businesses are viable today's economy?

2:14:27something to think about, not just like

2:14:30packing people [music] into an area like

2:14:33sardines and hoping that somehow these

2:14:35people find it

2:14:37>> Thank you, sir.

2:14:37>> enjoyable

2:14:39and they blend with the neighborhood and

2:14:42bring more prosperity. That's not

2:14:44necessarily going to happen.

2:14:46>> Thank you, sir. Richard Oaks.

2:14:55Did Richard leave?

2:15:00Okay. Jacqueline Rabage.

2:15:12>> Hi, good morning chair, vice chair, and

2:15:15members of the committee. My name is

2:15:17Jacqueline Roarge and I am a resident of

2:15:20Laurville. I moved there from Remington

2:15:23which um it was a row home in Remington

2:15:25and I was a firsttime home buyer when I

2:15:28almost turned 40 and now almost 60. I've

2:15:32lived in Rem or in Laurville for quite

2:15:34some time. I moved to Laurville because

2:15:37it's racially diverse, is gay friendly,

2:15:40and it's got some trees. Where I live in

2:15:43Laurville, it's my first yard. my very

2:15:46first yard when I was like, I don't

2:15:48know, 50 or something. And I love my

2:15:52neighbors. When I broke my wrist not too

2:15:54long ago,

2:15:56people saw me walking around with a cast

2:15:58and came to help. But, you know, I come

2:16:02to this issue from a lens as someone

2:16:06who's worked in Baltimore my entire 26

2:16:10years of being here, working with people

2:16:13who cannot find rental housing, who are

2:16:17coming home from incarceration, who are

2:16:19le leaving domestic violence situations.

2:16:23And so I know what it's like to try and

2:16:26convince a lawy landlord to take a

2:16:28voucher.

2:16:30This bill does nothing to serve my

2:16:33clients. And actually,

2:16:36we aren't looking at the whole picture.

2:16:39There is no plan. Try and put any of

2:16:42these calculations that we're hearing in

2:16:46oral fashion to a test. Let's see the

2:16:50plan. Let's see the best practices and

2:16:53the empirical research that's in the

2:16:55master plan. That's models that been

2:16:59have been endorsed by the city. Now,

2:17:03when you look I just want to uh 12

2:17:06seconds. Um let me just give you a

2:17:08couple data points. um of across the all

2:17:13the the nine neighborhoods, 61%

2:17:17are are um primarily uh

2:17:22black indigenous people of color. And I

2:17:25need to take a couple more seconds

2:17:27because I have a language delay. So, um,

2:17:32when you look at these neighborhoods are

2:17:35not,

2:17:36um, all one thing. And so, we're

2:17:39applying a strategy to, so if you look

2:17:41at Ham Hamilton Hills, it's 72% people

2:17:46of color, but the homeowners

2:17:49are only 45%. When you look at Arcadia,

2:17:53it's 40%.

2:17:55But the homeowners are 83% the owner

2:17:58occupied. So why am I giving

2:18:02the these numbers? Why do I have the

2:18:05numbers about the the equity analysis?

2:18:09Because why are we not following the

2:18:12master plan that says we need to help

2:18:16people build wealth and retain wealth?

2:18:18The only people that will benefit from

2:18:20this bill are developers.

2:18:22>> Thank you.

2:18:26Um,

2:18:29sorry, I should have called Sue Kessle

2:18:32sooner.

2:18:34Um, I'll call somebody else while Sue is

2:18:36coming down. Uh, I do have one other

2:18:38person here.

2:18:40Shed

2:18:44>> Seltzer

2:18:46for the Harford Road overlay bill.

2:19:06Um, and so after uh Miss Seltzer and

2:19:10then Sue Castle, I only have one other

2:19:12person, Chris Warman, here to testify in

2:19:15person.

2:19:17Miss Seltzer, you have two minutes.

2:19:19>> Yeah. Um, I live in Liberty Square. Uh,

2:19:24in my neighborhood is between 74 and 80%

2:19:28renters. Um, my house is a detached

2:19:31single family house, the only single

2:19:33family house on the block.

2:19:37Um,

2:19:39I want to tell you about this

2:19:41neighborhood because it was

2:19:43intentionally built um at a time when um

2:19:46Jews came and they provided for

2:19:50everybody. So, they had detached single

2:19:53family houses and apartments and town

2:19:56houses.

2:19:58Um several years ago, someone decided to

2:20:02destroy a bunch of these houses um

2:20:06between Racerstown Road and on Liberty

2:20:08Heights and build a humongous

2:20:13um neighbor um complex and it's

2:20:18triangular and it is uh cuts um and

2:20:22destroys chi and it is bad energy and

2:20:27Um, I bought my house six plus years ago

2:20:30and two people have died in front of my

2:20:32house. So, I want to explain to you that

2:20:37imaginary people, unless you have a list

2:20:39of people who are going to move into

2:20:42these proposed places, you are talking

2:20:45about imaginary people. And that's

2:20:47insane. Absolutely insane. when you have

2:20:50people who live there that you should be

2:20:53caring about right now because it's

2:20:56supposed to be taking care of the whole

2:20:59um Baltimore city which is sinking.

2:21:03There's sink holes. The houses are

2:21:05sinking. The the energy the the land is

2:21:10not just sinking it's collapsing. Penis

2:21:12came up with a report two years ago. you

2:21:15still don't read. And I'm talking about

2:21:17journal articles, science,

2:21:21trees, can't can't

2:21:25keep still because they don't have

2:21:27enough water because we have to go back

2:21:29to a permeable infrastructure.

2:21:32And you're not taking care of Baltimore

2:21:34city so people can live here, the ones

2:21:37that already live here. Now,

2:21:40>> thank you, Miss Selter.

2:21:42Sue Castle.

2:22:01>> Hi.

2:22:02>> Hello. Nice to see you all.

2:22:04>> Do I uh

2:22:05>> You're good. You just have two minutes.

2:22:08>> Yeah, there you go. Um, I just wanted to

2:22:10say that I am a fan of Ryan's to a large

2:22:13degree and there are a lot of things of

2:22:15his that I support, including our bike

2:22:17lanes that have made Harford Road much

2:22:20more manageable in terms of on foot. But

2:22:23um I do want to bring up just a little

2:22:25bit of the history of this only because

2:22:27I am in opposition and uh we to I was

2:22:31one of the the people who did testify at

2:22:33the land use hearing first time round

2:22:36and the committee did not end up um

2:22:41approving it. [clears throat] It was

2:22:42actually taken out of committee and I

2:22:44think some of you on the committee now

2:22:47were were present. So I just want to

2:22:49address that as history. Um, I also

2:22:52wanted to ask if anybody has seen the

2:22:54map that was created uh that shows every

2:22:58single property that is involved because

2:23:00a lot of them are many many many more

2:23:02than five per block. And that's an

2:23:05online map that it was created by one of

2:23:07our residents. Um, and I'm I'm basically

2:23:12going to just not repeat a lot, but I I

2:23:16I would like to say that we really

2:23:18haven't had any examples of a city like

2:23:21ours where this um pl this type of

2:23:25density increasing has been done. I live

2:23:28in Walther adjacent to Laurville which

2:23:31is a really really successful I don't

2:23:34know if you call it a hub or a pod but

2:23:36it's the same length distance-wise as

2:23:39Hampton and Fels Point and the Charles

2:23:41Village corridors even though we're

2:23:44quite different but like everything else

2:23:46it's a niche thing. So, since I have 21

2:23:48seconds, I think that's pretty much the

2:23:51only thing I want to say other than both

2:23:54Soha and the MCB property is within the

2:23:57Lauravville area. So, they are

2:24:00definitely part of our half a mile

2:24:03strip. Um, and the other thing is that

2:24:05there are four things, two current

2:24:08buildouts to the street also in the

2:24:11Laurville area. I could go on, I'll try

2:24:14not to. So, thank you.

2:24:18Thank you, Chris Warman.

2:24:31>> I don't know where the button is, but

2:24:32you can even lift the whole thing up,

2:24:34but I don't know. It's somewhere

2:24:35underneath.

2:24:36>> I think I'm good. Okay. Uh yeah. Uh

2:24:38thank you, uh committee. Thank you, uh

2:24:40council chair or committee chairperson.

2:24:42Uh, I'm a resident of the third district

2:24:45in one of the neighborhoods included in

2:24:47the proposed overlay footprint. I've

2:24:49lived in Baltimore for 15 years and come

2:24:52Halloween, eight of them will have been

2:24:53at my home in Hamilton Hills. I am

2:24:56testifying today in support of the

2:24:57Harford Road Overlay District. In the

2:25:00process of discussing this legislation,

2:25:02I've learned that a few of my most vocal

2:25:04neighbors wish to live in some sort of

2:25:07suburban quietude despite the abundance

2:25:09of options for that lifestyle in every

2:25:11other county in the state. I choose to

2:25:14live in Baltimore and I choose to live

2:25:16in Hamilton Hills because I want to live

2:25:18in a city. I want to live in community

2:25:21with many and diverse neighbors. I want

2:25:23to partake in a wide selection of

2:25:25vibrant small businesses and community

2:25:27amenities. I want to enjoy strong and

2:25:30comprehensive public services from trash

2:25:32pickup to bus service to public schools.

2:25:35I support the overlay district because

2:25:37it advances all of the things that most

2:25:39of my neighbors love about city life. It

2:25:41directly facilitates new avenues for new

2:25:44neighbors to join our community. With

2:25:46proximity being so integral to small

2:25:48business success in a world of online

2:25:50shopping and delivery apps, these new

2:25:52neighbors and their local buying power

2:25:55will attract and strengthen businesses

2:25:57in our commercial corridor. An

2:25:59additional res residential density is

2:26:01what drives additional investment from

2:26:03the city and state in public goods. More

2:26:07neighbors, more small business, more

2:26:09public services. It sounds pretty good

2:26:11to me and to many of our neighbors. And

2:26:14lastly, while hearing from current

2:26:16residents is important, I would urge the

2:26:18committee to also consider the interest

2:26:20of stakeholders that cannot advocate for

2:26:22themselves today. Future residents whose

2:26:24housing is made possible as a result of

2:26:27this legislation. The neighborhoods

2:26:29within the Overlay district are

2:26:30desirable places to live, ones where

2:26:33opportunities to move in are scarce

2:26:34compared to demand, and as a result,

2:26:36increasingly expensive. Zoning is a key

2:26:39issue preventing creative housing

2:26:41solutions and boxing out these potential

2:26:43residents and is one of the few issues

2:26:45that is fully under the control of the

2:26:47city to change. On behalf of these

2:26:49future residents and all of my present

2:26:51neighbors that want their city

2:26:52neighborhood to support a vibrant city

2:26:54lifestyle, please to vote to advance

2:26:56this legislation. [music] Thank you.

2:26:58>> Thank you. We have several people to

2:27:01testify uh online.

2:27:06Cynthia North.

2:27:18>> You should be able to unmute.

2:27:22>> All right, I'm here.

2:27:25>> Hello. Um, I'd like to say that I am in

2:27:28opposition to this bill um for several

2:27:31reasons. Number one, it's poorly

2:27:33planned. Number two, it's based on a

2:27:36study 20 years old before COVID's

2:27:39impact. It will adversely affect current

2:27:42physical infrastructure, water, sewer,

2:27:44trash. It will adversely affect police

2:27:47and fire. There is no appeal process. It

2:27:51would directly impact green spaces. It

2:27:54would present safety issues for area

2:27:57children walking to school or playing in

2:27:59the immediate neighborhood. It would

2:28:01adversely impact residential property

2:28:03values. It would adversely affect

2:28:06neighborhood by increased traffic and

2:28:08parking on residential streets. I did

2:28:10not move to Hamilton 40 years ago,

2:28:13paying my taxes, keeping my property

2:28:15clean and neat, being active in my

2:28:17community to live in a corridor. Please

2:28:20do not allow this bill to pass. Thank

2:28:23you.

2:28:23>> Thank you,

2:28:28Katie. Katie Meccl.

2:28:40>> Katie Michel, you should be able to

2:28:42unmute yourself now. There you go.

2:28:44>> Okay.

2:28:45>> Can you hear me?

2:28:46>> Yes.

2:28:48>> Okay. Um, thank you very much for this

2:28:51opportunity. Um, I do absolutely oppose

2:28:54the Harford Road overlay. I am within

2:28:57the impacted area.

2:28:59I I don't see where there is any

2:29:01justification that warrants this impact

2:29:03on our residents. Uh multif family

2:29:05structures do not guarantee those

2:29:07residents will ride the bus. So have

2:29:10enough studies been done to show the

2:29:12parking situation on residential roads

2:29:14if the project moves forward. Also, uh,

2:29:18as others have mentioned, you emergency

2:29:20services, police personnel, how much is

2:29:22budgeted to enforce the safety and the

2:29:25laws of the current as well as these

2:29:27additional residents that you're hoping

2:29:29to bring in? And we we are still dealing

2:29:33with the bike lane project. It has taken

2:29:37business away from some Harford Road

2:29:39businesses that I I know of, and

2:29:44business is truly down from before. So

2:29:46that has taken away from what you're

2:29:49trying to propose here. I I do ask that

2:29:52you all kindly take this into

2:29:53consideration before you vote on this

2:29:55project. Our livelihoods are in your

2:29:56hands. My neighbors and I wish to remain

2:29:58in our homes without zoning change. One

2:30:02other note is how many council members

2:30:06sitting there actually support the

2:30:09current businesses on Harvard Road to

2:30:11actually help increase

2:30:13their

2:30:15uh [clears throat] customer base.

2:30:18Thank you very much.

2:30:19>> Thank you

2:30:24Chelsea Calibres.

2:30:29You should be able to unmute yourself.

2:30:42>> Chelsea, are you with us?

2:30:45>> Can you hear me now?

2:30:46>> Yes.

2:30:48>> Thank you. Uh, I live in the proposed

2:30:51overlay and I'm here to ask you to not

2:30:53advance this bill. To put this in

2:30:55perspective, the 500 foot overlay is

2:30:58almost my whole block. It is almost half

2:31:00of my street. That is not a modest

2:31:03overlay. That is a wholesale override of

2:31:05the zoning protections that we bought

2:31:07our homes under. One of the biggest

2:31:09financial decisions of our lives.

2:31:12Eliminating the yard requirement doesn't

2:31:13just change a setback line on a survey.

2:31:16It removes space where green

2:31:17infrastructure exists. When you multiply

2:31:20that by every street in the overlay, we

2:31:21are talking about the potential of

2:31:23significant permanent loss of tree

2:31:25canopy and green space in a city that is

2:31:28already short on both. I want to be

2:31:30clear about what I'm not saying. I'm not

2:31:33against renters. I'm not against growth.

2:31:35I support development along Harford

2:31:37Road. What I am against is a bill that

2:31:39hands enormous one-sided power to

2:31:41developers over the people who already

2:31:43live here with almost no corresponding

2:31:45protection for us. Let is let's not

2:31:48forget how John's Hopkins accumulated

2:31:50land in East Baltimore in ways that left

2:31:52blight and disinvestment behind for

2:31:54decades. I'm not saying this bill is

2:31:57identical to that. I am saying that when

2:32:00this city has handed disproportionate

2:32:02power to wellresourced developers over

2:32:05individual homeowners, history shows

2:32:08that working people lose. We lose our

2:32:10homes, we lose our communities, and we

2:32:13lose our opportunity to pass on

2:32:14generational wealth.

2:32:17Please choose people over profit and

2:32:19reject this bill. There's a better way

2:32:21to support de development along Harper

2:32:23Road. Thank you. Thank you,

2:32:27Kathleen Qatarba,

2:32:39Kathleen Guitar.

2:32:56Kathleen, you should be able to unmute

2:32:57yourself.

2:33:08Okay, we will move on. Colleen

2:33:11Macintosh,

2:33:16you should be able to unmute yourself.

2:33:33Colleen Macintosh.

2:33:39Okay, we will look I'll try

2:33:42Kathleenqatara one more time.

2:33:44Kathleenqatara, are you there?

2:33:58Okay. And then I'll try uh

2:34:03Colleen Macintosh one more time.

2:34:06Can you hear me?

2:34:08>> Yes.

2:34:10>> Hi. [clears throat] Hi. Um, uh, my tiny

2:34:14hundred-year-old home, it is in the 500

2:34:17ft overlay. We've lived here 30 years.

2:34:20We moved from downtown to be in a quiet,

2:34:22close-knit community.

2:34:25My husband and I are not opposed to

2:34:26building a Harford Road, but we are

2:34:29opposed to the 500 foot overlay.

2:34:32Um my points of contention are the um no

2:34:37parking included in this bill, which

2:34:39would be a massive is issue on our

2:34:41little one-way street uh which our local

2:34:45businesses actually use as well. Um

2:34:48infrastructure, our 100-year-old pipes

2:34:51will be overwhelmed. We already have

2:34:53issues with our sewer, water, and

2:34:55electricity on our street. So this is

2:34:57unacceptable. Our fees will only

2:35:00increase as a result.

2:35:02Taxes. We're already paying exorbitant

2:35:05property taxes. Will this raise them

2:35:08even more? Probably. Property values.

2:35:12This will absolutely affect our property

2:35:14values and not in a good way. Biggest

2:35:17concern is developers. There is

2:35:20absolutely no oversight or constraints

2:35:22on the developers who will be swooping

2:35:25in like the scavengers. They are. No

2:35:28architectural restrictions or conforming

2:35:30to our neighborhood. No control and

2:35:33capacity or rental fees. No parking

2:35:35including included. But whoever wins the

2:35:39golden uh the goose that laid the golden

2:35:41egg will get tax incentives.

2:35:43>> We won't, [clears throat] but they will.

2:35:46>> Um what is our recourse if a developer

2:35:49does something wrong or reres havoc on

2:35:51on reres havoc on our community? Um, we

2:35:56were told that basically there's no

2:35:57recourse.

2:35:59Um, so please vote no on this overlay.

2:36:04And uh, lastly, I didn't realize that

2:36:07buying a single family home in Baltimore

2:36:09City was a bad thing. My property taxes

2:36:13would say otherwise.

2:36:17>> Thank you.

2:36:23Okay, we have two people left online.

2:36:26Kevin Duval and then John Simpkins.

2:36:31Uh, thank you very much for this

2:36:33opportunity. I want to

2:36:36echo the sentiments of the last two

2:36:39callers. I too uh am one of the 1700

2:36:44uh property owners that's affected by

2:36:46this directly. I would ask the council

2:36:49to vote no unless we could get some type

2:36:53of relief from the 500 foot incursion

2:36:57into the neighborhood. I think that the

2:37:01development along Harford Road has long

2:37:03been needed and especially in Westfield

2:37:06uh in my neighborhood where we straddle

2:37:09Harford Road and there's been no uh real

2:37:12commercial development for over 40

2:37:15years. So, I would ask that you oppose

2:37:19the amendment, the overlay as it's

2:37:21currently configured, uh, so that we can

2:37:24address the concerns about displacing

2:37:261,700 families and tree canopy and

2:37:31paving over uh, three miles of property.

2:37:35Thank you.

2:37:36>> Thank you,

2:37:41>> John Simpkins.

2:37:44And this is our last uh person to

2:37:45testify.

2:37:51>> Hey, good morning. Can you hear me?

2:37:53>> Yes.

2:37:54>> Hey.

2:37:55>> All right. Sorry. Good afternoon, uh,

2:37:56Chairman Dorsy and members of the

2:37:58committee. Uh, my name is John Simkins

2:38:00and I'm here to express my support for

2:38:02the bill um, the Harford Overlay

2:38:04district. Um, I've lived in this

2:38:07community my whole life. I grew up here.

2:38:09I raised children here, rebuilt my

2:38:11family home here, and now I'm raising

2:38:14another generation here. Over the past

2:38:16several weeks, I've spent a great deal

2:38:18of time reading the bill, reviewing the

2:38:20reports, attending meetings, and

2:38:21listening to the neighbors both sides. I

2:38:24believe there really are legitimate

2:38:26concerns and understand questions about

2:38:28density, parking, infrastructure design,

2:38:30and transition between new development

2:38:33and our existing homes. But

2:38:36you know, after considering all these

2:38:37concerns, I still believe the

2:38:38possibilities created by the overlay

2:38:40outweigh the risk. I support it for

2:38:42three reasons.

2:38:44Faro needs serious investment. It's

2:38:46blighted. I've watched good businesses

2:38:48come and go for decades. I have watched

2:38:51properties remain vacant and underused.

2:38:53I don't want to wait another 20 years

2:38:55hoping something will eventually change.

2:38:58Second, businesses need people.

2:39:00Apartments are not really gold for me.

2:39:02people are more residents mean more

2:39:05customers, more restaurants, bakeries,

2:39:07shops, etc. Third, I believe we can grow

2:39:10while protecting what makes Larville

2:39:12Hamilton and the surrounding

2:39:13neighborhoods great. Development and

2:39:16preservation do not have to be

2:39:17opposites. We can encourage investment

2:39:19while expecting good architecture,

2:39:22attractive facades, and responsibility.

2:39:25I've heard many predictions about what

2:39:27could go wrong if this bill passes.

2:39:29Those possibilities deserve

2:39:31consideration.

2:39:33But I also believe we need to consider

2:39:34what could go right.

2:39:36What if the vacant and underused

2:39:38properties are redeveloped? What if the

2:39:41additional flexibility allows mixeduse

2:39:43buildings with businesses facing Har

2:39:45Road with parking behind them? What if

2:39:48we attract both market rate and

2:39:49affordable housing? What if additional

2:39:52residents finally provide the customer

2:39:54base that allows for good businesses to

2:39:58survive?

2:40:00And we should ask what if we do nothing?

2:40:02We just keep the status quo, keep the

2:40:04things the way they are. I think if we

2:40:07continue the way we are that uh Buff

2:40:09Road is just going to continue to

2:40:11decline.

2:40:12>> Thank you, John.

2:40:12>> Get worse.

2:40:14>> All right. Thank you.

2:40:15>> Thank you for your testimony. Thank you

2:40:17everybody for testifying on this bill.

2:40:19Um

2:40:21I will make just one comment. Um couple

2:40:24brief comments here just having heard

2:40:26everybody.

2:40:28committee members welcome to as well. Um

2:40:31but this one in particular because it

2:40:34was presented as a matter of legal

2:40:36nature uh about what is the nature of an

2:40:40overlay. Mr. Murphy's testimony and

2:40:42writing cites the city code the zoning

2:40:46codes um section 12102 purpose of

2:40:49overlay districts. And um it says an

2:40:52overlay district is a district

2:40:53established by ordinance which by which

2:40:56a layer of regulation is superimposed on

2:40:58the regulations of an underlying zoning

2:41:00district. It does that. The overlay

2:41:03district is intended to modify or

2:41:05supplement the regulations of its

2:41:07underlying zoning districts in

2:41:09recognition of unique circumstances in

2:41:11the area. I think that there are clearly

2:41:14unique circumstances in the area where

2:41:15you have less than 1% residential

2:41:18vacancy but over 10% uh commercial

2:41:21vacancy in the adjacent commercial

2:41:22corridor. I also think that um you have

2:41:26unique circumstances in the area um in

2:41:30that it has continued to struggle for

2:41:35decades despite many other statistical

2:41:38and demographical indicators that should

2:41:40show that this that that should that

2:41:43many would believe would result in a

2:41:48thriving commercial opportunity zone.

2:41:51and we don't have that that this that

2:41:53this the problems of the Harford road

2:41:55corridor have persisted the way that

2:41:57they have for as long as they have I

2:41:59believe I would say constitutes you

2:42:01unique circumstances of the area and

2:42:03specifically recognizes it um in the way

2:42:07that it was studied and through uh

2:42:10addressing the recommendations uh of

2:42:13that study and then while maintaining

2:42:17the general character and purpose of the

2:42:19underlying zoning districts over which

2:42:21it is located. I don't think that

2:42:23there's any question that it maintains

2:42:27everything about the commercial corridor

2:42:30in its general manner. And I tried to uh

2:42:35speak to this point actually in my

2:42:37opening comments, but when we're talking

2:42:40about neighborhoods that have

2:42:41collectively uh roughly 16,000 dwellings

2:42:45in them and the overlay area affects

2:42:48roughly 1,200 dwelling uh residential

2:42:51properties, that's less than 10%.

2:42:54There's no

2:42:56way I can see a 90%

2:42:59uh you know area that maintains exactly

2:43:03the status quo. Um and then this 10% not

2:43:08even guaranteeing change allowing change

2:43:11possibly. um where in a city in a given

2:43:16year only 1% of any properties in the

2:43:18entire city see any form of

2:43:21redevelopment or uh renovation. Um the

2:43:24rate of change uh that it can reasonably

2:43:27be expected here is a small small

2:43:32percentage over any given period of time

2:43:35of just the 10%

2:43:38of dwelling areas that this overlay even

2:43:42uh affects directly in the the

2:43:45surrounding neighborhoods. So again,

2:43:471,200 out of 16,000 properties or 16,000

2:43:51dwellings um is a extreme minority. And

2:43:55so uh there's no question to me as to

2:43:58whether or not this maintains the

2:43:59general character and purpose of the

2:44:01underlying zoning district over which it

2:44:03is located. Um

2:44:07>> that you're out of order, sir.

2:44:09>> No, we are finished with public

2:44:11testimony on this. And um are there any

2:44:15other comments or questions from the

2:44:17committee members?

2:44:20Okay, I would like to offer these

2:44:22amendments

2:44:24for this bill. Um as I

2:44:29um

2:44:30covered earlier, amendment one is uh

2:44:34amendments to the title of the bill and

2:44:37striking uh obsolete material um

2:44:42from the bill. Uh amendment two is to

2:44:46remove the uh wholesale reference to R10

2:44:50as the standard for multif family and

2:44:53instead reference the table that is

2:44:55created on pages uh two and three um

2:44:59table 12404

2:45:02for how multif family can be built on

2:45:04the residential uh lots.

2:45:07Amendment three, uh, addressing, uh,

2:45:10concerns from the law department about

2:45:12curb cuts. Uh, amendment four, adding in

2:45:16grocery stores as, um, a an allowed use.

2:45:20And amendment five, uh, the planning

2:45:23commission recommendation

2:45:25uh, pertaining to, uh, energy centers

2:45:30um, from permitted to conditional by

2:45:33board. Um, I'd like to move these

2:45:35amendments. Um, all in favor amendments,

2:45:39Mr. Chair, none of the members of the

2:45:41public.

2:45:43>> All in favor of adopting these

2:45:45amendments say I. I. Oppose say nay.

2:45:49>> Abstain.

2:45:54Council

2:45:54>> Porter.

2:46:12Um,

2:46:15>> okay.

2:46:17>> We took a vote on the amendments. solid

2:46:19statement.

2:46:22>> Anybody who wishes to comment on these

2:46:24amendments, uh they are they'll be

2:46:26posted to the legisar website and um

2:46:31anybody who wishes to comment on them to

2:46:33the council can submit we are finished

2:46:35with public testimony. Um

2:46:38anybody who wishes to comment on these

2:46:39amendments can review them on the

2:46:41legisar website. Submit your comments to

2:46:45uh members of the council, me, whomever.

2:46:47Will you act on them?

2:46:49>> Uh we will move on. We will move on to

2:46:54uh the BMZA amendments.

2:47:00Uh I will move the BMZA's amendments.

2:47:03All in favor of adopting the BMZA's

2:47:06amendment uh say I. I. Oppose say nay.

2:47:12Abstain.

2:47:14Okay. Great. The uh Dorsy amendments and

2:47:17the BMZA amendment are voted favorable.

2:47:20Uh I will move the bill. All in favor of

2:47:22recommending this bill favorable with

2:47:24amendments say I. I. Oppose say nay.

2:47:28Abstain.

2:47:30>> Thank you. This bill will be reported

2:47:32favorable with amendment at the next

2:47:34council meeting.

2:47:42>> Yeah. Uh, and I'll have a floor

2:47:44amendment.

2:48:08Okay,

2:48:10we will move to council bill.

2:48:18>> We're going to go to exit. We just did

2:48:23>> council bill 260195

2:48:27zoning accessory dwelling units.

2:48:30Um

2:49:42Okay.

2:49:44Council Bill 20

2:49:48six. Excuse me. We're going to move on

2:49:50now.

2:49:5226

2:49:570195.

2:49:59zoning accessory dwelling units.

2:50:03Um, we heard this bill last week.

2:50:09I understand there is a minimal amount

2:50:11of testimony to uh is asked to be given

2:50:15here. I will allow some additional

2:50:17public testimony. Just um we have four

2:50:21people,

2:50:22>> two online, two in person.

2:50:24>> Okay, we have two online and two in

2:50:26person. That is the extent of the public

2:50:28testimony that we will have on this

2:50:30bill. So, it should take less than 10

2:50:32minutes for us to get through public

2:50:33testimony on this and then we will bring

2:50:35it to a vote uh including amendments. Um

2:50:39I have amendments and Councilman

2:50:41Blanchard has amendments. Um

2:50:44okay, who are two

2:50:48in person?

2:50:54Um, I cannot read the name.

2:50:58Oh, Doug Armstrong.

2:51:00Douglas Armstrong. Come on up.

2:51:06>> Armstrong.

2:51:08>> Uh, on the thing in front of you on the

2:51:09microphone thing, hit the button on the

2:51:11right.

2:51:11>> Oh, sorry.

2:51:12>> There you go.

2:51:13>> Douglas Armstrong, uh, Baltimore

2:51:15homeowner, resident, 2828 North Howard

2:51:18Street. Uh this bill is malpractice.

2:51:22It's also uh the bill and the and the

2:51:25amendments are dishonest. When you carve

2:51:27out part of a rowhouse for a second

2:51:30dwelling unit, it is no longer a

2:51:32rowhouse because it's no longer a single

2:51:34family. It's a multif family dwelling.

2:51:36No way around it. If you take two

2:51:38rowouses, two a two-story rowhouse with

2:51:41a basement and you convert it into one

2:51:43unit on the first floor and one unit on

2:51:45the second floor, which is what this

2:51:46amendment calls for. That's just

2:51:48multifamily dwelling. You're not fooling

2:51:51anybody. It's either single family or

2:51:53multif family. Look at the definitions

2:51:55in the code.

2:51:57And then look at the use tables in the

2:51:59code. You're not adding anything to the

2:52:02use tables. It's clear you're trying to

2:52:04hide the true intent of this bill.

2:52:07You're pretending this is something new,

2:52:08but it's not. It's just a conversion

2:52:11from single family to multif family with

2:52:12two units, which is which you are trying

2:52:15to permit with this 11th hour amendment.

2:52:17again without adding anything to the

2:52:19tables.

2:52:21Besides, if you did if you added a

2:52:24special two-unit multif family permitted

2:52:26use to the tables for every zone, people

2:52:28would catch on to what you're doing like

2:52:30they did with bill 2566.

2:52:33You got away with increasing multif

2:52:35family density on established rowhouse

2:52:37blocks with bill 2564.

2:52:40You didn't even you didn't get to go

2:52:42even further with 2566.

2:52:45What do you have against row houses?

2:52:48Rowhouse blocks are the tax cash cows of

2:52:52the Balt of Baltimore City. We are

2:52:55dollar denser than any other zoning

2:52:58category in in the city. That's R six, R

2:53:01seven, R8.

2:53:03So, as citizens and homeowners, we're

2:53:06left with taking you to court, as you've

2:53:08just heard before, and v or voting you

2:53:11out and redoing deceitful zoning changes

2:53:15at great cost and time wasted. Thanks

2:53:18for wasting all of our time today.

2:53:22>> Thank you. Um,

2:53:25Miss Alter,

2:53:27Miss Alter,

2:53:30>> and then we will go to our two people

2:53:31online.

2:53:41So, I have a single family detached

2:53:44house and the two houses on either side

2:53:46of me are uh rentals and uh my

2:53:51understanding is single zoning means

2:53:54that they could just build another house

2:53:56or just a a square thing and make it

2:54:00rentals. block out the sun, not allowing

2:54:03me to have a garden or or any any

2:54:08pleasure of my dwelling. Um, so I'm

2:54:12vehemously against this. Um,

2:54:17Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall, a seaw wall

2:54:20that fell down. Humpty Dumpty had a

2:54:23great fall. Baltimore sinking,

2:54:26collapsing.

2:54:28Humpty Dumpt all the king's horses and

2:54:30all the king's men couldn't put Humpty

2:54:33Dumpty back together again. This is

2:54:36where we are. Climate crisis. Just

2:54:38because you're a Democrat does not mean

2:54:40you're any shape or form

2:54:42environmentalist. When you haven't

2:54:43passed a single thing in the past three

2:54:47years regarding climate supposed to be

2:54:50climate resiliency. There's supposed to

2:54:52be that you understand that we must

2:54:55return to approvable infrastructure and

2:54:58it costs billions of dollars. But that's

2:55:01how you save Baltimore. Stop. Stop. Stop

2:55:04trying to get imaginary people to live

2:55:06in Baltimore when they don't want to

2:55:08live here and they can't live here and

2:55:10they will never be able to live here

2:55:12because you're going to make Baltimore

2:55:15go into receiverhip. And I've been

2:55:17telling you this for years, years, and

2:55:20years. How dare you squander all this

2:55:25time and energy that we could be doing

2:55:27TO SAVE BALTIMORE IN THE FIRST PLACE?

2:55:29You're going to make us leave.

2:55:33>> Thank you, Miss Elzer. We have two

2:55:35people online.

2:55:37>> Because it's too heavy. These multic

2:55:40complex compartments are too heavy.

2:55:43That's They're list.

2:55:51One way or another.

2:56:04>> Um, okay. We have

2:56:08I'm not going to repeat testimony from

2:56:10the last hearing we had. We already had

2:56:12Miss Deb O'Neal testify at the last

2:56:14hearing. We're going to go to Miss Linda

2:56:16Bats.

2:56:29>> Good afternoon. Can you hear?

2:56:30>> Yes, ma'am.

2:56:32>> Thank you so much for the opportunity to

2:56:34speak before you all this afternoon.

2:56:36Before I begin, I would just like to say

2:56:38that I would have appreciated the

2:56:40opportunity to hear former mayor Jack

2:56:42Young's testimony regarding the matter

2:56:45that brought him before the council

2:56:47today. Given his experience leading the

2:56:49city and navigating the practical

2:56:51challenges of governance, his

2:56:52perspective on whatever bill he came to

2:56:55testify on would have been valuable to

2:56:58this discussion. Um, in so far as the

2:57:01current bill under consideration, I am

2:57:04opposed to it. The city speaks of

2:57:06connecting communities on the one hand,

2:57:09yet risk creating a system that

2:57:11separates them by status and privilege

2:57:13on the other. Strong neighborhoods

2:57:15depend on participation, transparency,

2:57:17and trust. Voning appeals are a critical

2:57:20community guardrail against unchecked by

2:57:23right discretion. They provide a fair

2:57:25form for residents to challenge

2:57:27decisions that may substantially alter

2:57:30the character, capacity, and quality of

2:57:32life of their communities. When

2:57:34oversight is reduced and discretion is

2:57:36expanded, residents are left with fewer

2:57:39protections and less participation in

2:57:42decisions that directly affect their

2:57:43homes and neighborhoods. That is not a

2:57:46community connection. It is concentrated

2:57:49control. It favors convenience over

2:57:52consensus and privilege over

2:57:54participation. Uh I am especially

2:57:57opposed because as with some of the many

2:57:59previous bills that have preceded this

2:58:02250066

2:58:04and 21

2:58:07019 I believe there have not been the

2:58:11required and prudent equity fiscal

2:58:15environmental and other studies

2:58:16[clears throat] that are necessary to

2:58:19present before the public before

2:58:22uh changes of this scope scope and

2:58:24magnitude

2:58:25are are put into place. So, uh I would

2:58:29also say that the city continues to

2:58:31expand its budget while failing to

2:58:34increase the quality and and delivery of

2:58:39deliverables to the communities. As a

2:58:42result, and without laboring further, I

2:58:45oppose this and ask for the council to

2:58:48vote in opposition. Thank you, sir.

2:58:55Okay. And the last person to testify

2:58:57will be Miss Nicole Gate. Nicole

2:58:59Gatewood.

2:59:08>> Good afternoon. Can you hear me?

2:59:10>> Yes.

2:59:12>> Good afternoon. My name is Nicole

2:59:13Seagate with Esquire, president of the

2:59:14Hillsdale Heights Neighborhood

2:59:15Association of Northwest

2:59:18Single Family Homes. Our position is

2:59:20clear. HHNA does not support CCB 260195

2:59:25in its current form. Baltimore is

2:59:27required to comply with Maryland law,

2:59:29but compliance does not require a broad

2:59:32by framework without meaningful local

2:59:34guard rails. The October 1st deadline

2:59:36was foreseeable. Maryland approved the

2:59:38law in 2025. The bill was not introduced

2:59:41by Baltimore City until May 2026. A

2:59:44compressed calendar should not compress

2:59:46community review.

2:59:48Baltimore is not starting from zero.

2:59:50Existing zoning regulations allow

2:59:52carriage houses and residential

2:59:54conversions. We know how to pair housing

2:59:56flexibility with process. That concern

2:59:58echoes CCB 25-0066.

3:00:02Different bill, same question. By right

3:00:05residential intensity for meaningful

3:00:07process and protections. Planning has

3:00:10now recommended allowing ADUs to apply

3:00:13occupy required rear yard and pvious

3:00:16service area. That is a consequential

3:00:19local choice. One approval happens on

3:00:22one lot, but a neighborhood lives with a

3:00:26cumulative effects. In Hillsdale

3:00:28Heights, green space is infrastructure.

3:00:31It is not just green space. It's not

3:00:34leftover land. So, here's our path to

3:00:37yes. Make the process efficient. Make it

3:00:41predictable. But do not make it

3:00:43efficient automatically

3:00:46without safeguards. Give us clear

3:00:48eligibility, limits on size, placement,

3:00:51lot coverage, pvious service loss,

3:00:54protections for trees, drainage, storm

3:00:56water, notice, and sightspecific input

3:00:58for directly affected neighbors, and

3:01:00clear enforcement. A one-sizefits-all

3:01:03approach framework is not a

3:01:05collaborative path forward. We

3:01:07understand aging in place,

3:01:09multigenerational housing, caregiving,

3:01:12rental income, but a one size approach

3:01:15framework is not the answer.

3:01:17Collaboration means balancing housing

3:01:19flexibility with the voices of directly

3:01:21affected residents. I have two sentences

3:01:23and I will be done. We elected our state

3:01:26representatives. We elected our local

3:01:28representatives to carry out our

3:01:30community's voices and vision into city

3:01:33hall, not replace them. amend the bill

3:01:36first, build the guard rails into the

3:01:38law, and then move forward together in

3:01:40unity. I thank

3:01:41>> you, Miss Gatewood.

3:01:44>> Okay.

3:01:46Um, colleagues, we have amendments here.

3:01:50Um, I have a set of five amendments, one

3:01:55of which I'm going to ask that we uh not

3:02:00move. um because Councilman Blanchard

3:02:04has an alternative to it that is almost

3:02:08identical but adds a couple of things.

3:02:10Um

3:02:12uh amendment number one in my package um

3:02:16is pursuant to the law department's

3:02:20um

3:02:22uh recommendation that it says that a an

3:02:26an ADU that is attached to an existing

3:02:30structure is not considered to be part

3:02:35of the principal structure.

3:02:38Um, amendment number two addresses the

3:02:42redundancy of the existing carriage

3:02:45house law that uh with the adoption of

3:02:48this ordinance, the carriage house law

3:02:51would not be necessary anymore and it

3:02:53would con constitute uh or it would

3:02:56establish essentially a conflict of

3:02:58standards for the same things. Um,

3:03:01amendment three changes the standard of

3:03:05measurement. Um, pursuant to the state

3:03:08law, ADUs,

3:03:10um, should be smaller in size than the

3:03:14principal structure. And rather than

3:03:16using floor area, this amendment changes

3:03:19it to lot area because the effect is the

3:03:22same when you combine lot area and

3:03:24height standards that exist in the bill.

3:03:27Um, and it means that uh you can't end

3:03:30up with a

3:03:32ADU structure that is larger in its

3:03:35footprint than the uh principal

3:03:37structure on the lot. I will skip

3:03:39amendment four because this is the one

3:03:41that I I would have asked to have

3:03:44replaced with Councilman Blanchard's

3:03:46amendment number three. And then

3:03:48amendment number five uh is a transition

3:03:53provision that was proposed by the

3:03:54zoning board uh staff uh about what

3:03:58happens to existing structures in terms

3:04:00of their um conforming or non-conforming

3:04:04status and such. Um are there any

3:04:07questions from the committee about these

3:04:09amendments?

3:04:12Okay, I would like to move uh my

3:04:15amendments number one, two, three, and

3:04:20five, but not number four. Um,

3:04:23Councilman Gray, your thing about the

3:04:25registry is in Councilman Blanchard's

3:04:27amendment number three. Um, all in favor

3:04:30of adopting these amendments say I. I.

3:04:34>> I.

3:04:35>> Opposed, say nay. Abstain.

3:04:38Okay, these amendments are um voted

3:04:42favorable.

3:04:44Uh Vice President Middleton, before I go

3:04:46on to Councilman Blanchard,

3:04:48>> um you you can finish then I want to

3:04:50just make a matter of record of remember

3:04:52that as that I asked. I'll

3:04:55>> Yes, we will do that before we um before

3:04:58we vote.

3:04:59>> Uh Councilman Blanchard, your

3:05:00amendments.

3:05:01>> Um Mr. Dorsy, can you please um talk

3:05:05through your amendment number four and

3:05:07then I'll explain the

3:05:09>> No problem.

3:05:10>> The

3:05:11>> my addition original amendment for from

3:05:14uh that was in the packet from last week

3:05:17>> um

3:05:18establishes

3:05:21generally other standards pertaining to

3:05:24ADUs. Um

3:05:28it establishes the st the the the

3:05:31provision about where it can where one

3:05:34can exist uh inside of required lot

3:05:39lines. Um, this is informed also, by the

3:05:42way, by the state law that says that

3:05:45local jurisdictions can't adopt

3:05:49density standards that would effectively

3:05:52got

3:05:53>> um prohibit ADUs from being permitted.

3:05:56Um, that's specifically called out in

3:05:58the state law. Um then there's a

3:06:01provision about attachment to principal

3:06:03dwelling which is um sort of a part

3:06:06that's in tandem with amendment uh one

3:06:11from the law department that again says

3:06:13that um

3:06:16when an ADU is attached to the principal

3:06:18structure it is uh not it is not

3:06:22considered part of the principal

3:06:23dwelling. Um it specifies that no more

3:06:27than section D no more than one

3:06:30accessory dwelling unit may be

3:06:31established on a lot. The first reader

3:06:34was not clear on that point and so this

3:06:37clarifies that. Um and then section E

3:06:40comes from BMZA uh cons consultation uh

3:06:45and conversation about uh where an ADU

3:06:49can exist. Um there we don't ne we don't

3:06:54want people building ADUs in the front

3:06:58yard of houses, but if there is an

3:07:03existing structure like a garage that it

3:07:07protrudes into that existing uh front

3:07:09yard to some degree, there's nothing to

3:07:13say that that garage can't be converted

3:07:15into an ADU. um is kind of the nut of

3:07:19what um section E is about. And then

3:07:23Councilman Blanchard, your amendment

3:07:25three uh adds Yeah.

3:07:28>> F and G to that.

3:07:30>> Yep. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, um

3:07:34number uh sorry, letter F in my

3:07:37amendment number three uh does two

3:07:40things. one, um it clarifies that a

3:07:43rowhouse could be uh could have a

3:07:48um

3:07:49an ADU on the property as well. Uh and

3:07:52then also based off of some feedback

3:07:53that we got um during the public

3:07:56hearings last week, we did want to make

3:07:58sure uh that there are no ADUs on a

3:08:01multif family building. So, for example,

3:08:03if you have a a threeunit property or a

3:08:0610-unit property or 20-unit property,

3:08:07whatever, it doesn't make any sense to

3:08:09have an ADU on that property, whether

3:08:10it's one per unit or one total. Um, so

3:08:15it is saying that uh an accessory

3:08:17dwelling unit may not be built on a lot

3:08:19with a principal multif family dwelling.

3:08:21So, that's clarifying that's not the

3:08:23purpose of an ADU. Um, and so we wanted

3:08:26to put those guardrails there. And I

3:08:27appreciate um Nika Emi and John Kern

3:08:30from the SOE fund for um flagging that

3:08:34um potential issue. And then uh letter

3:08:37G, which I think came from uh some

3:08:39questioning that uh my

3:08:41>> Councilman Parker,

3:08:43>> I think this is Councilman Gray's uh

3:08:45line of questioning from last week. uh

3:08:47and it uh requires the department of

3:08:49housing community development to create

3:08:51and maintain a permanent publicly

3:08:53accessible database for all ADUs and all

3:08:55permits issued for the constructions of

3:08:57an ADU. Uh so that way we can see uh

3:09:00where this is happening across the city,

3:09:01see what the impacts are, see how

3:09:03frequently this is happening and also

3:09:04make sure that we can see that these

3:09:05things are being permitted correctly,

3:09:07right? because uh I think all of my

3:09:10colleagues know the challenges with um

3:09:14ensuring things that are getting built

3:09:16in your district are correctly

3:09:18permitted. So, and I appreciate um

3:09:20Councilman Gray's uh questions and

3:09:23whatnot around that. Um so that those

3:09:26are the two additional letters to my

3:09:29amendment number three, which is

3:09:30otherwise identical to Councilman

3:09:32Dorsey's amendment number four. Um,

3:09:39>> yeah. So, I'll talk through Yeah. I'll

3:09:41talk through amendments number one and

3:09:42two. So, and I'll talk through amendment

3:09:45number two first, just because I think

3:09:47it's a little more logical. Um, as I

3:09:50brought up several times in the last

3:09:51hearing, um, I think we should be able

3:09:54to have ADUs in row homes. I actually

3:09:57feel really strong about that. My

3:09:58district is uh almost exclusively row

3:10:02homes outside of downtown. Uh I think

3:10:04that being able to age in place, being

3:10:07able to have multigenerational uh

3:10:09households, being able to have some

3:10:11rental income out of an English basement

3:10:12or something like that is something that

3:10:14makes perfect sense and I've been

3:10:15vocally supportive of for a long time. I

3:10:18think we should have that uh in all of

3:10:19our neighborhoods uh including our row

3:10:21home neighborhoods. So, it allows for

3:10:23that, but it does put a cap uh saying

3:10:25that no more than 40% of the gross floor

3:10:27area of the structure can be used for

3:10:29the ADU. Meaning that if you have say um

3:10:34a 2,000 ft

3:10:36square foot home, uh the ADU would not

3:10:41be able to be larger than 800 square ft,

3:10:44right? So, um you have you still have

3:10:47the clear principal uh unit and then the

3:10:50ADU as opposed to say like a duplex

3:10:53which could be mirrored.

3:10:55And then lastly, amendment number one,

3:10:59um it clar going into that for that

3:11:01reasoning clarifies

3:11:03um that an ADU within the same structure

3:11:06as a principal single family dwelling uh

3:11:08does not constitute res conversion and

3:11:10therefore they're two different

3:11:12processes that they would need to go

3:11:14through. Um, and then also says that if

3:11:18in the future, let's say you had a

3:11:20situation where you had a property, you

3:11:22then had an ADU, um, built an ADU on the

3:11:26property, and then you wanted to convert

3:11:28to a multif family through the standard

3:11:30multif family conversion process, that

3:11:32ADU would have to be treated as one of

3:11:34the units for all of the protections

3:11:36that are in place for, uh, number of

3:11:39units per lot size and all that type of

3:11:41thing. So, um, I think that also makes

3:11:44sense as well. That's all, Mr. Chair.

3:11:46>> Thank you, Councilman Blanchard. Any,

3:11:48uh, questions or comments from the

3:11:49committee about Councilman Blanchard's

3:11:51amendments?

3:11:54>> Okay. Councilman, would you like to move

3:11:56these amendments?

3:11:58>> I would.

3:11:58>> Oh, don't.

3:12:00>> Yeah, let's do.

3:12:01>> You'd like to just discuss these

3:12:03amendments?

3:12:03>> Oh, I would absolutely love to discuss

3:12:05these amendments. Yes. Thank you.

3:12:06>> Okay. I did invite that before I asked

3:12:07him to move it.

3:12:08>> Yeah. I didn't realize you were jumping

3:12:09right into voting, Mr. Chair. Sorry.

3:12:13Please, you have the floor. Councilman

3:12:15Parker.

3:12:15>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, yeah, I

3:12:18strongly oppose the amendments brought

3:12:19by Council Person Blanchard, all three

3:12:21of them today, with the exception of um

3:12:24uh Council Person Gray's um uh concept

3:12:28of the registry, which is tacked on to

3:12:30uh an amendment that has nothing to do

3:12:32with the rest of it content-wise. And so

3:12:34I I I think it's a little frustrating

3:12:35because I'd love to be here supporting

3:12:36Council Person Gray's amendment here in

3:12:38committee and to not be able to do so

3:12:40because it's attached to what I consider

3:12:42to be a a gross violation of the the

3:12:44bill in front of us that I sponsored

3:12:46from the very beginning. And um with

3:12:47these amendments, I would be strongly

3:12:49opposed to. Um so uh that being said the

3:12:54concept of an ADU um both by uh reason

3:12:58logic and state law is a a detached or

3:13:03uh or or semi- detached or attached

3:13:07structure a separate structure right

3:13:10state law defines it this way

3:13:13um uh in the law that we are trying to

3:13:16uh uh abide by by passing this one

3:13:19internally uh ADU means a secondary

3:13:22dwelling unit that is on the same lot

3:13:24etc etc as the primary not greater than

3:13:27etc. It includes a structure that is

3:13:29separate from the primary or attached as

3:13:32an addition to the primary. Uh it

3:13:35specifically says dwelling unit does not

3:13:37include a unit in a multi family

3:13:38residential building. um either a multi

3:13:40family residential building that already

3:13:41exists which I appreciate council person

3:13:43Blanchard being thoughtful about uh or a

3:13:46single family building which would

3:13:47inherently become multif family by

3:13:49adding an internal ADU which again I

3:13:51suggest internal ADU is contrary to

3:13:53reason and contrary to state law as is

3:13:56defined. There is no such thing as an

3:13:57internal ADU. There is attached and

3:13:59there is a is a secondary structure that

3:14:02is attached or detached but it is it is

3:14:04not the same structure that already

3:14:06exists. Right? That's not accessory.

3:14:08It's it's it's the building, right? Um,

3:14:11so that being said, we have a path

3:14:13already existing in R seven and R8,

3:14:15which I appreciate the council person's

3:14:17concern for row house neighborhoods. Uh,

3:14:18I grew up in his district in Row House

3:14:20and I represented a district that's

3:14:22almost entirely rowhouse neighborhoods

3:14:23as well. So, we we share similar

3:14:24backgrounds here and and similar

3:14:26passions about it. Um, I also share the

3:14:29council person's commitment to um making

3:14:32sure that we have additional flexibility

3:14:34towards residential conversions. I in

3:14:36fact sponsor amendments last year to 66

3:14:38which would have adjusted the R seven R8

3:14:41conversion process so that it would not

3:14:42have to come as ordinances before uh

3:14:45before this committee but instead would

3:14:46go before the uh uh the BMCA for a

3:14:49conditional use by uh by board rather

3:14:51than conditional use by ordinance which

3:14:52is an incredibly heavy burden and

3:14:53doesn't belong in our zoning code in our

3:14:55city laws. Um, so I I support any

3:14:58efforts that we might make to make the

3:15:00conversion process and to increase

3:15:02access to multif family housing uh

3:15:04whether it's 40% of the structure or 50%

3:15:07of structure, whatever else, doesn't

3:15:08really matter. Um, in our R seven and R8

3:15:10rowhouse neighborhoods. Um, but but to

3:15:12backdoor it as a buy and pretend that a

3:15:15second unit um somehow is magically not

3:15:18multif family housing, I just just I

3:15:21mean the code defines multif family

3:15:24structures. it already exists in the

3:15:26code. And so now we're going to have two

3:15:27things. So, so now if you want to

3:15:29convert your basement, you could either

3:15:30file for a ordinance through your

3:15:32council person in R78 district and go

3:15:34through this whole process. Um, or you

3:15:36could uh you just say like, oh, it's

3:15:38it's an ADU. Well, well, no, it's it's

3:15:40one thing. It's one thing. It needs to

3:15:42be one thing in the code. And if we're

3:15:43going to fix that, which we should by

3:15:45making it easier to convert to multif

3:15:47family, not only in R seven and R8, but

3:15:49in all the R zoning districts, in all

3:15:51the R zoning districts, I'm here for

3:15:52that conversation. uh then it needs to

3:15:54be consistent and it needs to be we need

3:15:56to be honest about what we're talking

3:15:57about and not try to tap it into in a

3:16:00backdoor way or a basement way which is

3:16:02the the favorite the favorite ADU um

3:16:04standin here uh to our good faith

3:16:07efforts to address um the ADU

3:16:11requirement put on us by the state and

3:16:12that that many of us are eager to see uh

3:16:15whether it's the backyard of row house

3:16:16or the backyard of a single family home

3:16:18in a different part of the the city that

3:16:20is a priority for us and so we need to

3:16:22focus on that priority and not not

3:16:24create uh not create this uh this

3:16:26essentially two-unit by rightight across

3:16:27the entire city when that is its own

3:16:30proposal that deserves its own time and

3:16:32hearing and has nothing to do with

3:16:34creating a a better and more streamlined

3:16:36and more effective ADU process.

3:16:40>> Councilman Blanchard.

3:16:41>> Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh and I

3:16:44thank my colleague from the first

3:16:46district uh for his concerns here. Um, I

3:16:50will note, and I do feel this is a

3:16:52matter of arguing semantics, but if you

3:16:53look on the Maryland, uh, Department of

3:16:56Planning's website, uh, the first two

3:16:59sentences, ADUs are smaller independent

3:17:01dwelling units, attached or detached,

3:17:03located on the same lot as a standalone

3:17:05single family home. ADUs can be

3:17:07converted in converted rooms in existing

3:17:11home open parenthesis interior ADUs

3:17:13closed parenthesis additions quote

3:17:16attached ADUs or new converted

3:17:18standalone accessory structures. Um

3:17:21there is down at the bottom there's an

3:17:23opportunity to give feedback to the

3:17:25state department of planning about that.

3:17:26But um the state department of

3:17:29planning's interpretations of ADUs is in

3:17:31line with mine. Um, and I'll say and I I

3:17:34know that my colleague um had some

3:17:37family commitments and was able to make

3:17:38last week's, but I just want to make

3:17:39really clear. I was across repeated

3:17:43points in in last week's um meeting and

3:17:46you didn't accuse me of this, but I

3:17:47think it's just important to state it

3:17:49for the public. Um, very clear that I

3:17:51think it is actually really important

3:17:52that interior ADUs are allowed. Um, and

3:17:56so

3:17:58I've been I don't know. I don't know how

3:18:00I would be able to be more transparent

3:18:02um with my own position on this than

3:18:04than I have been. Um and just kind of if

3:18:06I can give a brief sort of example of

3:18:07why we would want something like this.

3:18:10And this is a this is not a fabricated

3:18:12story. I was at Cross Street Market. Um

3:18:16on Saturday I saw an old neighbor of

3:18:18mine who was a bartender in the

3:18:19neighborhood. She used to live next door

3:18:21to us. She moved out somewhere else.

3:18:23She's uh in the neighborhood. A house on

3:18:26our block just went up for sale. it had

3:18:28been um improved and built out and

3:18:30everything. And she was like, "I saw 19

3:18:33is up for sale." Like uh she's like, "I

3:18:36would love to put in on it." Um but

3:18:38she's like, "You know, the whole

3:18:39bartender salary thing." She has a

3:18:42non-romantic uh roommate uh non-romantic

3:18:45relationship roommate. She was like, you

3:18:46know, Brody could move in with me, but

3:18:49it's kind of weird because there's not

3:18:50like she literally said like if like the

3:18:52basement was a separate unit or

3:18:54something like that and he could just go

3:18:55in through that way, that would make it

3:18:56a lot easier for me to buy it. So, I

3:18:58really think that this is a very

3:19:01meaningful positive impact to it creates

3:19:04opportunities for real people in a lot

3:19:06of different situations. Um, and I don't

3:19:09think it's right to ban it across most

3:19:11of our districts. And I don't think it's

3:19:13right to it is I think clearly distinct

3:19:15from a conversion. Um and I think the

3:19:17state department of planning would agree

3:19:19with me on that one. So thank you Mr.

3:19:21Chair.

3:19:21>> Thank you Councilman Gray or Porter. Do

3:19:25you have any comments?

3:19:28>> Council Parker again.

3:19:30>> Thank you Council President Blanchard

3:19:32for that. Um so uh so yeah and my

3:19:34district is full of uh multif family

3:19:38conversions uh whether it's carriage

3:19:39houses or internal conversions. Um and

3:19:42they address exactly the kind of things

3:19:44that your neighbor is talking about. Um

3:19:46and so thankfully it's not forbidden. In

3:19:49fact there's a process a long-standing

3:19:51existing process that you're very

3:19:52familiar with and which I just

3:19:53referenced which is the multif family

3:19:54conversion in R seven and R8. So act

3:19:56like this is solving a problem that

3:20:00exists because of a ban is disingenuous

3:20:02because it's not banned, it's permitted

3:20:05both by right if new construction and by

3:20:07a conversion process, a clunky, slow

3:20:10conversion process that needs to be

3:20:11fixed. And I know you and I will work

3:20:13together to fix it. Um, but to act as

3:20:16though your neighbor or all the other

3:20:18neighbors who have already gone through

3:20:19conversions, including the ones we voted

3:20:20on this morning, we know this process

3:20:22exists because we already took up bills

3:20:24converting to multif family today in

3:20:26this thing in R seven and our eight

3:20:27districts. Um, that process exists. It

3:20:30should be improved, but it's not banned.

3:20:32It's permitted in R seven and R8 and it

3:20:34ought to be permitted in more so that we

3:20:36increase that flexibility. Um, but to to

3:20:39create a backdoor way of saying, well,

3:20:40this is an internal ADU and not a multif

3:20:44family conversion just simply it's just

3:20:46simply not true. Let's fix the process

3:20:48we have and expand it to give people an

3:20:51easier and better way to do that across

3:20:53the entire city. Um, but not come

3:20:56sideways at something when really we're

3:20:57focused on on ADUs which are external to

3:20:59a a single a single building.

3:21:05>> Okay. Any other

3:21:07committee member comment on this?

3:21:11Um

3:21:15Tony, I also had a I just want to note I

3:21:18sent around a version of my amendment um

3:21:24four that did incorporate Councilman

3:21:26Gray's

3:21:28um registry into it. Um, that didn't get

3:21:34>> you should have that in your inbox.

3:21:36Um,

3:21:38by the way, uh, it just wasn't in the

3:21:41packet.

3:21:43Um,

3:21:47Councilman Blanchard,

3:21:50would you like to move these amendments?

3:21:58>> Yes.

3:22:02I would like to move the amendments.

3:22:05>> Um,

3:22:09uh, shall we move them all together?

3:22:11Okay. Um, all in favor of adopting these

3:22:14amendments say I. I. Oppose say nay.

3:22:19>> Abstain.

3:22:22Um, I wasn't clear about that. Um, maybe

3:22:26we should do a roll call. Okay. Um, the

3:22:29chair votes I. Uh, Vice Chair,

3:22:32>> hi.

3:22:32>> Uh, Councilman Blanchard,

3:22:34>> I.

3:22:35>> Um, Councilwoman Porter,

3:22:36>> hi.

3:22:37>> Councilman Parker,

3:22:38>> no.

3:22:39>> Councilman Gray,

3:22:40>> no.

3:22:41>> Okay. Uh, the eyes have it. These

3:22:43amendments are uh voted favorable. Um,

3:22:48and uh, I'd like to move the bill

3:22:50favorable with amendments.

3:22:53Um,

3:22:55>> oh, but before we do that, I want to

3:22:57come back to two things that were

3:22:59brought up in the hearing

3:23:01last week.

3:23:02>> Mr. Chair, can you vote on just Mr.

3:23:06Blanch's amendments or your amendments

3:23:08as well?

3:23:08>> We had already voted on my amendments.

3:23:11Um,

3:23:13we had requests from Councilwoman Porter

3:23:17and Councilwoman Middleton, u,

3:23:20Councilwoman Porter from the fire

3:23:22department. Um, I believe the fire

3:23:24department responded providing the

3:23:27references from the international

3:23:29residential code that show that without

3:23:32needing to amend the bill, these

3:23:34standards would already would already

3:23:36apply to any ADUs to be permitted.

3:23:39Council Porter.

3:23:41>> Yeah. Emmes, you want to actually

3:23:43provide some context on that based on

3:23:45our conversation?

3:23:48>> So, um, yes. Um, thank you for the

3:23:51question, Council Person Porter. when I

3:23:53initially provided the fire department's

3:23:55position on a bill is because this um

3:23:58the definition of accessory dwelling

3:24:00unit is not clearly laid out in our code

3:24:03and we've been working with you with you

3:24:05and u and it appears that all the

3:24:09applicable building and fire codes would

3:24:11apply to any new ADA units.

3:24:14>> Yes, thank you. Yeah. Um an ADU is a DU

3:24:17first and foremost, right? It's an

3:24:19accessory dwelling unit that is a

3:24:22dwelling unit. And so any code that

3:24:24applies to any dwelling unit will apply

3:24:26to it just like it applies to single

3:24:29family dwelling unit, multif family

3:24:31dwelling unit, whatever. So thank you.

3:24:34Appreciate the clarity. And then for

3:24:35Councilwoman Middleton, uh there was a

3:24:37request for a um what the path forward

3:24:43um an implementation plan um some sort

3:24:47of website uh or some sort of public uh

3:24:50facing presentation of like what it

3:24:53would mean um to have uh like what is an

3:24:58ADU and how does a person get an ADU and

3:25:01I know that I spoke to Jason Wright DACD

3:25:05and he spoke to planning and that

3:25:06planning would take this part on.

3:25:10>> And I did just to add I did receive a um

3:25:14chart form of a an actual process that

3:25:19as a council member if we get calls that

3:25:21come in they can see that process. Um

3:25:25there are probably some people here and

3:25:27from the last hearing a number of the

3:25:31amendments that have been presented

3:25:33today were was feedback from that

3:25:36meeting from that particular hearing and

3:25:41um also you know just to sum up the same

3:25:44thing with uh what Councilman Porter

3:25:47asked for but I did receive yes and I

3:25:52don't know if he just quickly

3:25:54Uh maybe you can just quickly explain

3:25:56what you what you gave me which I

3:25:58thought was a very um important piece

3:26:03for us to follow as we move forward. If

3:26:06you just want to give some quick words

3:26:08about that.

3:26:08>> Is that mic working?

3:26:09>> Because it's important. Yes, it's

3:26:11working.

3:26:11>> Justin,

3:26:12>> the mic works. Uh yes. Uh good

3:26:14afternoon. Uh thank you, Councilwoman.

3:26:16Uh Justin Walker, DOP. Um, what I

3:26:18provided was a draft of the one-pager,

3:26:21which would walk uh, homeowners or

3:26:23anyone interested in establishing an ADU

3:26:26on the property through the uh, approval

3:26:29process both uh, from a zoning

3:26:31standpoint and then the permitting they

3:26:33will need to receive. Um, as as I

3:26:35mentioned to you, it was a draft because

3:26:37we'll have to see where today's

3:26:38amendments land to know exactly uh,

3:26:41where ads will be allowed and what that

3:26:43process will be. But it's a it's

3:26:45essentially a six-step document for any

3:26:47homeowner that's interested in

3:26:49establishing an ADU. Um exactly the

3:26:51process they would need to go through.

3:26:58>> Thank you.

3:26:59>> Thank you, Justin. Okay. Uh I move the

3:27:02bill favorable with the amendments, uh

3:27:06the Dorsy amendments and the Blanchard

3:27:07amendments. Uh all in favor of uh

3:27:11recommending this bill favorable say I.

3:27:14>> I.

3:27:15>> Oppose say nay.

3:27:16>> Nay.

3:27:17>> I hear

3:27:19two three

3:27:22>> oppose. Okay that is four uh affirmative

3:27:26two negative uh sorry three negative. Um

3:27:30this bill will be fa v reported

3:27:32favorable with amendments to the council

3:27:35at its next meeting. Um, we're concluded

3:27:38on that.

3:27:40We

3:27:42have one last bill on the agenda today.

3:27:44And I want to thank everybody who has

3:27:46been here so patiently waiting for 3

3:27:48hours and 47 minutes.

3:27:52Uh, I also want to thank all of our

3:27:53staff who has sat here for so long

3:27:55today. All of our agency staff and

3:27:57everybody. Um we'll take just one minute

3:28:00and then we will begin with

3:28:04conditional uh 260174

3:28:07zoning conditional use health equity

3:28:10assessment data centers. Um I will begin

3:28:13by asking the sponsor of the bill to

3:28:15present the bill to the committee. Yes.

3:28:17Um, I will also note

3:28:21um I think everything that we've had on

3:28:23the agenda here today has gone on um a

3:28:26bit longer than we all expected. Um I

3:28:30fractured three ribs in my back and

3:28:32three uh vertebrae yesterday. Um and I'm

3:28:37sitting here a lot longer than I

3:28:40expected to.

3:28:41>> Sure. Um, I would like to hear the

3:28:44sponsor's presentation of the bill

3:28:46personally. Um, after which I really

3:28:49need to go and rest and I'm going to

3:28:51hand the chair over to, uh, Vice Chair

3:28:55Middleton um, after hearing the initial

3:28:58presentation from the bill sponsor. Um,

3:29:01my apologies.

3:29:04>> Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. All right.

3:29:09>> You ready?

3:29:10>> Please.

3:29:10>> Okay. Good afternoon everyone. Um I am

3:29:12Councilwoman Felicia Porter and I am the

3:29:15bill sponsor for 26-0174

3:29:19zoning conditional use by ordinance

3:29:21health equity assessment for data

3:29:23centers. First I want to acknowledge the

3:29:25controversy surrounding this bill. I

3:29:27understand that data centers are

3:29:30definitely a very controversial issue um

3:29:32in the in our nation and in our state

3:29:35and in our city. But I also want to

3:29:37highlight that we have to continue to

3:29:39have this conversation in a very

3:29:41transparent form and also validating

3:29:44community concerns to make sure that we

3:29:47not only address the misconceptions

3:29:49about legislative language but that we

3:29:51also provide opportunities for any type

3:29:55of policy disposition that is unlike

3:29:58ones that are currently being po poured

3:30:01into Baltimore. So, I will also like to

3:30:04affirm the support for residents um who

3:30:07want to ban data centers um and their

3:30:09right to advocate. I think that it is an

3:30:12opportunity for them to keep pushing

3:30:14once a vote is called to ban data

3:30:17centers. I welcome that in this chamber,

3:30:20but as of right now, there is not a

3:30:22current legis there's not current

3:30:23legislation to ban data centers and the

3:30:26topic is currently held by a council

3:30:28member right now. and also with that

3:30:32topic reservation I am unable to work on

3:30:34that particular bill. So we are coming

3:30:36up with different strategies for for

3:30:38forward movement.

3:30:41I want to take this also as an

3:30:43opportunity to reframe this again as an

3:30:45opportunity to be proactive and informed

3:30:47and really understand the current

3:30:49moratorum. Yesterday's legislative

3:30:52yesterday's legislative oversight

3:30:53hearing um related to data cent's

3:30:55community impact revealed some very very

3:30:58damning information about one the

3:31:00moratorum and two the factors of the

3:31:03health the environmental health aspect

3:31:05of this particular moratorum. I take

3:31:07this as an opportunity to again have

3:31:10conversations with folks, advocates,

3:31:12industry, and also government to make

3:31:15sure that we get this right, but also we

3:31:18cannot continue to have this

3:31:19conversation without drastic public

3:31:22input. So, I'm going to go over the bill

3:31:25real quick.

3:31:27Next slide.

3:31:30All right. Again, during yesterday's

3:31:32hearing, I asked the current data center

3:31:34inventory in the city of Baltimore. I

3:31:36asked about regulations for data centers

3:31:39currently existing in the city. What

3:31:41specific regulations related to

3:31:43operations, health and noise would any

3:31:45type of permitting for existing

3:31:47facilities pending applications prior to

3:31:49the moratorum and impact study

3:31:51collaboration. So where this bill

3:31:54originally started originally 26-0174

3:31:58established data as data centers as

3:32:00conditional use by ordinance requiring a

3:32:02health equity assessment before approval

3:32:05in the IM1 and IM2 areas of the city. We

3:32:08know that this is we know that this is a

3:32:10targeted area based on infrastructure

3:32:12and land in the and land resource in

3:32:15those particular areas. There is a

3:32:17current gap that existed within

3:32:19Baltimore zoning framework for data

3:32:20centers at the time of this

3:32:22introduction. So the four amendments

3:32:24that were that were shared from the

3:32:27planning commission meeting, we actually

3:32:29integrated them into this bill that we

3:32:31have here today. So again, the original

3:32:34bill does not include the amendments

3:32:36from the planning commission. We took

3:32:38time to hear the public discourse and

3:32:40also the recommendations from the

3:32:42planning commission to actually

3:32:44introduce and draft amendments that are

3:32:46on my members that are on the members's

3:32:48desk today. I also want to highlight

3:32:50that data centers currently are

3:32:53permitted by right. Permitted by right

3:32:55means that you do not have to go through

3:32:57any public posting. You don't

3:32:59necessarily have to get public input.

3:33:02We had yesterday at yesterday's hearing,

3:33:05it was determined that we had six

3:33:06currently in the city. I asked very

3:33:08specific questions related to public

3:33:10posting, whether the council member was

3:33:11involved, whether there was any city

3:33:13council interaction, and it was

3:33:16negative. Uh, it was a um it was a no

3:33:18response to each of those questions. So,

3:33:23oh, hold on,

3:33:26hold on.

3:33:28I want to play yesterday's testimony for

3:33:30folks in the room. just in case they did

3:33:32not see it.

3:33:39H it's a YouTube video.

3:33:48Maybe if we go to the presentation.

3:33:56>> There we go.

3:33:58Um,

3:33:59>> and my last my last question with the

3:34:01moratorum, can you speak to the last

3:34:03time you had a conversation um outside

3:34:05like I know you are I know you all are

3:34:07having conversations. Can you speak to

3:34:09the last time you had a conversation

3:34:11regarding your collaboration with the

3:34:12health department and our other partners

3:34:14for the moratorum?

3:34:17>> I have not had

3:34:18>> you've not had a conversation with the

3:34:20health department of planning.

3:34:21>> Sure. So um I know Austin Davis my

3:34:24colleague hopefully is online. He's at a

3:34:25a conference in New York and he's been

3:34:27doing the the preponderance of the work

3:34:29on data centers. Um, and I think our

3:34:31conversations with the health department

3:34:32determined that they don't have the

3:34:33staff to do the background data

3:34:35analysis. So, we're going to try and

3:34:37cover as much of that as we can. Though,

3:34:39of course, we defer to their expertise

3:34:40on actual health impacts. Um, so that

3:34:44has been somewhat limited in that way.

3:34:45>> Great. So, which agency are you going to

3:34:47for environ environmental pollution and

3:34:49or noise?

3:34:51>> Uh, I don't have that in front of me at

3:34:53the moment. I'm not sure to what scope

3:34:55that has been reached yet.

3:34:56>> No worries. That's an official committee

3:34:57request, please. I would like um

3:35:01So, I asked all I asked for all the

3:35:04official committee notific Oh,

3:35:06>> and my last my

3:35:07>> Thank you. Thank you, Tony. I asked for

3:35:09the official communications about um

3:35:12where the moratorum is, the inter agency

3:35:14aspect particularly with the health

3:35:16department and or any other partners

3:35:18strategically related to the

3:35:20environmental as environmental aspect.

3:35:22So what we know from the public

3:35:24sentiment that's already happening,

3:35:26communities across the country are

3:35:27pushing back against data center

3:35:28development and the resistance is real

3:35:30and understandable. However, Baltimore's

3:35:34has an opportunity through the health

3:35:35equity assessment requirement to count

3:35:37to directly counter that and it puts the

3:35:39the burden of disclosure on the

3:35:41developer and not the community. The

3:35:43reason why I put the burden on the

3:35:46developer and not the community is

3:35:47because the developer needs to pay for

3:35:49any type of um any type of assessment

3:35:52andor information that is privileged to

3:35:55this committee. So I felt that when we

3:35:58look at how information is being shared,

3:36:01we need to make sure that the developer

3:36:03is not only using tax dollars and

3:36:05taxable resources to have those types of

3:36:08resources shared with the committee, but

3:36:10that they also need to have the public

3:36:12they also need to have the burden of

3:36:14disclosure when they present their per

3:36:16permanent application.

3:36:21Next, I'm going to go through amendment

3:36:23by amendment. So I'm going to first go

3:36:25through what I heard from the planning

3:36:26commission. So the planning commission

3:36:28raised concern that the bill was written

3:36:30was a legal nullity during the moratorum

3:36:33period because it would permit

3:36:34conditional use approval while a

3:36:36moratorum is effect. The planning

3:36:37commission also said that the commission

3:36:39noted that the health department may not

3:36:41have the expertise or resources to

3:36:42review health equity assessments.

3:36:44Lastly, the commission flagged that BMCA

3:36:47references created confusion about

3:36:49future proofing and decision-making

3:36:50authority. So colleagues as to go to the

3:36:53amendments. Amendment one updates the

3:36:55data center definition, repeals and

3:36:57reordains the definition and delays the

3:36:59bill's effectiveness until the moratorum

3:37:01ends. So again we heard from community,

3:37:04we heard from the planning commission.

3:37:06This bill is actually this bill is

3:37:08actually going to further complement the

3:37:10moratorum and not be in competition.

3:37:13Amendment number two added definitions

3:37:15in the subsection to cover technical

3:37:17terms used in the bill. Amendment three

3:37:19changes the agency reviewing the health

3:37:21assessments from the health department

3:37:23to the office of sustainability which is

3:37:25in the department of planning. It also

3:37:27moves the requirement for a favorable

3:37:29health assessment before granting

3:37:30conditional use requiring the office to

3:37:32submit a report on the assessment's

3:37:34accuracy to the city council to

3:37:36alleviate any type of any type of

3:37:38ambiguity as it relates to the

3:37:40decision-making authority. And then

3:37:42amendment four raises various language

3:37:45changes for clarity and specificity

3:37:47specifically to the contents of the

3:37:48assessment. So again where the bill

3:37:51stands now the bill is fully contingent

3:37:53on the end of the moratorum. does not

3:37:55conflict and or cir circumvent current

3:37:58reg excuse me current restrictions and

3:38:02the health equity assessment requirement

3:38:03remains a core protective standard that

3:38:05the office of sustainability serves as

3:38:07an envir as an advisory capacity

3:38:10preserving the council's decision-making

3:38:11authority and last but certainly not

3:38:14least I want to go over the method by

3:38:16which um I wanted to bring this to the

3:38:18council as conditional use by ordinance

3:38:21so as it stands right now again I said

3:38:23data centers are permitted by right. I

3:38:26am of the mind that they're going to go

3:38:28conditional use by board once the

3:38:30moratorum ends which I think is

3:38:32insufficient. I think that we should use

3:38:34a conditional use by ordinance whereby

3:38:36we are introducing it from the council

3:38:38member having a committee hearing on the

3:38:41record having a vote then moving to

3:38:44second reading having a subsequent vote

3:38:46after that second reading then a third

3:38:48reading with a subsequent vote and then

3:38:50also lastly for the mayor's signature

3:38:52and or veto. It provides a opportunity

3:38:56at every step of the way to not only

3:38:58have council member and community input,

3:39:00but also that any type of information

3:39:03disclosure is not is only on the record

3:39:05and can be used in reference to any type

3:39:09of litigation that may happen and or

3:39:11come should that data center project go

3:39:13left. So, I'm going to stop there to see

3:39:16if there are any questions for you all.

3:39:18I know that um I don't think we're

3:39:20voting this out today, but I I look

3:39:22forward to having continued

3:39:24conversations about this particular

3:39:25bill. I know that it is not I know that

3:39:27this is this is a controvers you know a

3:39:29controversial bill. However, I think

3:39:31that we have to begin to talk about what

3:39:34this uh framework looks like, what the

3:39:36moratorum is actually doing and also how

3:39:39we as council members and our network

3:39:41and also with the advocates at the table

3:39:44can leverage transparency of this

3:39:46information being shared related to data

3:39:48centers in our city. Thank you.

3:39:51>> Thank you, Councilwoman. Um before I

3:39:53pass it over to um council pass the

3:39:57chair over to vice president Middleton

3:40:01um I will just reiterate um what you

3:40:03just said a moment ago. Uh Councilwoman

3:40:05Porter's office contacted

3:40:08uh me and I think Tony a couple of days

3:40:10ago and specifically said there should

3:40:13not be asking for a vote on this bill

3:40:15today. So, I just want to um make sure

3:40:19everybody here understands there's not

3:40:20going to be a vote on this bill today.

3:40:23Um,

3:40:25and

3:40:27I guess before I go, I want to just ask

3:40:29one question myself,

3:40:32>> you're saying you've said repeatedly

3:40:35that data centers are today permitted by

3:40:40right, but

3:40:42>> data centers are defined in the zoning

3:40:44code.

3:40:46as a specific use that is then not

3:40:49located

3:40:51in any of the zoning tables of the

3:40:54zoning code. And the rules of

3:40:58interpretation for the zoning code say

3:41:01clearly that a use that is not in the

3:41:04tables is not permitted.

3:41:06>> And so it's not permitted by right. It's

3:41:10not permitted at all today

3:41:14>> under the moratorum and the moratorum

3:41:17when it um lapses

3:41:21>> uh if not replaced by something uh prior

3:41:25to that then even strikes the

3:41:28definition. So [snorts] there's no

3:41:30definition even in the code. So

3:41:32>> yeah, I thought so too. But yesterday's

3:41:35um comment from Mr. So when when I

3:41:38specifically asked how these data

3:41:40centers got here, he mentioned that it

3:41:42was through office buildings coming into

3:41:44the city. And so again, I totally

3:41:47understand what you're saying as far as

3:41:49the definition, but they're still

3:41:50getting in away through a city through

3:41:52office buildings coming into the city

3:41:54without any public posting, without any

3:41:56community input. That was the point of

3:41:58the definition add being added to the

3:42:01moratorum though was that prior to the

3:42:03existence of the bill that established

3:42:05the moratorum, there was no definition

3:42:08of data center in the code and so they

3:42:11were being permitted as um an otherwise

3:42:14undefined use that was being sort of

3:42:18like uh sandwiched in or whatever under

3:42:21broader use categories like office

3:42:25building or something. But functionally

3:42:27>> and so now that's not possible.

3:42:29>> Functionally they are functionally

3:42:31they're they're

3:42:32>> they're they're functioning as a data

3:42:35center

3:42:35>> and so Mr. So, did you want to elaborate

3:42:37on

3:42:38>> maybe but

3:42:40>> but this we're talking about ones that

3:42:42were permitted before the moratorum and

3:42:45now that we have the moratorium and the

3:42:47definition it is not the case that they

3:42:49are permitted by right only ones that

3:42:51are already here are allowed to exist

3:42:54and anything that fits the definition of

3:42:57a data center uh that was established in

3:43:00the bill that also established the

3:43:02moratorum would not be permissible

3:43:04today. And so I just want to be clear

3:43:06about that they're not permittable by

3:43:08use. They're not permitted by right

3:43:09rather I mean there only there's no

3:43:12permitting of new data centers

3:43:14>> because we have a moratorum but I'm I'm

3:43:16speaking about before the moratorum.

3:43:18>> Okay.

3:43:18>> Yes.

3:43:18>> Okay. I will now hand it over to uh hand

3:43:22the chair over to Vice President

3:43:24Middleton. Thank you for taking it from

3:43:26here.

3:43:26>> Of course. Thank you. Any more questions

3:43:29to the sponsor before we uh move on to

3:43:35the agency reports?

3:43:39>> Yes, Councilman of the [clears throat]

3:43:4111th District.

3:43:42>> Yeah. Uh thank you, Councilwoman Porter.

3:43:44Um can you talk through, you know, in

3:43:47the we've been doing theformational

3:43:48hearings

3:43:49>> um and I certainly have been learning a

3:43:52lot over the course of these efforts.

3:43:55Um, can you just talk through um any any

3:43:59things that you might have identified

3:44:02since because I know it's been a couple

3:44:03months since you introduced this bill or

3:44:05things that I think we have the third

3:44:06hearing coming up at some point. How how

3:44:09>> theformational hearings are informing

3:44:12>> Yeah.

3:44:12>> your stance on all this?

3:44:13>> Yeah, and you're you're exactly right.

3:44:14So, theformational hearings are

3:44:16influencing kind of this bill this bill

3:44:18development. Um, one, we understand that

3:44:21zoning is going to be a critical issue

3:44:23um, for the localities to handle.

3:44:25Governor Moore just came out with his

3:44:27regulations for uh, data centers, I

3:44:29believe yesterday, to include a

3:44:31dashboard and a task force zoning, which

3:44:34is a primary um, which is a primary

3:44:36power of the localities is going to be

3:44:38ever most important. And so our use of

3:44:40the our zoning classifications and any

3:44:42type of conditional use aspects related

3:44:44to our zoning classifications are going

3:44:46to be ever most important. And I will

3:44:48tell you this, when we're looking at how

3:44:50the zoning classifications are being

3:44:52identified across the city, it's going

3:44:54to be even more important when we're

3:44:56talking about overburdensome of

3:44:58communities. Um, the burden that we're

3:45:00seeing in black and brown communities,

3:45:02it's going to be ever most important.

3:45:05>> Thank you, Councilwoman. Thank you,

3:45:06Madam Chair.

3:45:08>> No further questions. Thank you.

3:45:16Okay, starting with the law department.

3:45:20Thank you. Jeff Hawktler with the law

3:45:21department. Uh, as explained in law's

3:45:23report, the current uh drafting of the

3:45:26bill before the amendments, um, law had

3:45:28a number of concerns with uh, you know,

3:45:30including uh, improper delegation uh, to

3:45:33uh, Baltimore City Health Department um,

3:45:36in a way that sort of usurped the

3:45:37legislative role here. um some ambiguity

3:45:40in the uh terms and content of the

3:45:43health assessment um as well as sort of

3:45:45a you know conflict with the moratorum

3:45:47which has already been discussed.

3:45:53>> Excuse me. Excuse me. But if

3:45:57okay could you go to can I excuse me can

3:46:02there be some order here? Listen,

3:46:04please. If any of you have any question

3:46:07while we're going through this, go to

3:46:09the the officer or someone. You just

3:46:13don't stand up and speak out of order.

3:46:16This is like a court hearing. This is in

3:46:19the same. But don't please don't do that

3:46:22again. You can raise your hand. I can

3:46:25send somebody to you to ask what your

3:46:27question is, but you don't don't yell

3:46:30out like that. That's very that's

3:46:32impolite. And it's out of order.

3:46:35>> Yeah.

3:46:38>> Um the law department, can you um repeat

3:46:42what you said, please, and get just

3:46:45closer to the mic and maybe a little

3:46:47louder?

3:46:47>> Yes, co-chair Middleton. Uh is this is

3:46:50this better? Okay, great. Jeff Hawkeller

3:46:53with the law department. Um as explained

3:46:55in law's report, as written, the law

3:46:58department had a number of concerns with

3:46:59the bill uh before the amendments. uh

3:47:02including improper delegation to

3:47:04Baltimore City Health Department, some

3:47:06ambiguity in the terms of the health

3:47:08assessment um as well as conflict with

3:47:11the current moratorum. Um however, law

3:47:13is aware of the amendments proposed by

3:47:16or to be proposed by the sponsor uh and

3:47:19with those uh law can approve the bill

3:47:21for form and legal sufficiency.

3:47:29>> Good morning, Mara James, the Department

3:47:31of Finance. Um our initial bill report

3:47:34uh deferred to the planning commission.

3:47:36We have not seen the amendments to be

3:47:38able to assess any uh change of what

3:47:41would be happening there. Uh we

3:47:42understand that it shifts responsibility

3:47:45from the health department to the office

3:47:46sustainability. We would need to

3:47:47understand what capacity was there and

3:47:50how those impact um the other amendments

3:47:53impact the change to see if we would

3:47:55change our stance.

3:48:08Thank you. Uh, Madame Vice Chair Jason

3:48:11Wright representing DHCD. We stand

3:48:13behind our bill report of deferral to

3:48:15the Department of Planning.

3:48:22>> Good afternoon, uh, Madam Chair. Uh, the

3:48:24Baltimore Development Corporation, uh,

3:48:26diverse the planning commission in the

3:48:28report.

3:48:32Thank you, Madam Chair. We have no

3:48:34recommendation on this bill.

3:48:44>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Sunny Boyce for

3:48:46BMZA. Um, we had written our

3:48:49recommendation based on the the first

3:48:51reader and our initial concerns were

3:48:54related to um, subverting some of the

3:48:58board's independent judgment and and due

3:49:00process. And we understand that the um,

3:49:04councilwoman has made some proposals

3:49:06that data centers would now be um,

3:49:09conditional by ordinance, not by board.

3:49:12Um, we are still going to review those

3:49:15amendments. Um and we would also defer

3:49:18to to planning. We still have concerns

3:49:21about um determining the use um and the

3:49:25measurement for deter determining the

3:49:27capacity.

3:49:28>> Thank you. So most people are waiting

3:49:30for planning and now planning can speak.

3:49:35>> Thank you. uh Austin Davis Department of

3:49:37Planning and with regard to the original

3:49:39bill at its uh at the planning

3:49:41commission hearing uh on August 27th,

3:49:432026. The planning commission concurs

3:49:46with the recommendation of its

3:49:47departmental staff to adopt the findings

3:49:48and equity analysis outlined in the

3:49:50staff report with consideration to the

3:49:51bill and to disapprove the bill uh on uh

3:49:55data center zoning regulation until the

3:49:57impact study required under city council

3:49:59bill 26-058 is complete and returned to

3:50:01the council for with companion

3:50:02legislation anticipated for March 2027.

3:50:05With regard to the amendments, staff has

3:50:07had time to review them. And while many

3:50:09of the initial concerns from the

3:50:11commission were met, there is still the

3:50:14uh want to complete the impact study, I

3:50:16think it should be also stated that the

3:50:18commission did not disapprove or dislike

3:50:21the ideas of the health impact study and

3:50:23in fact they were allowed by the by the

3:50:26commission. But we would just prefer to

3:50:27have a little bit more time to finish

3:50:28the study and uh we can answer any

3:50:30questions on the timeline of that study

3:50:32or what has been completed thus far.

3:50:33Thank you.

3:50:34>> Thank you. And at this point it was

3:50:37mentioned earlier that we are not voting

3:50:41on this bill today. We are mainly going

3:50:44to take um testimony in person and we

3:50:49have I was told nine people online and

3:50:53of course we're going to start with the

3:50:55uh in-person [snorts]

3:50:57testimony and I'm going to kind of go

3:50:59down the list. Um three or four at a

3:51:02time can line up. Um, I apologize if I

3:51:06mispronounce your name wrong because I'm

3:51:08going by your handwriting.

3:51:12So, I'll start first with um the three

3:51:15people that can line up. And remember,

3:51:18you have two minutes and we have a

3:51:21number of in-person people if if they

3:51:24are still present. Um, and we'll start

3:51:27with Andrew Hines, Clara,

3:51:31um, Pel

3:51:35Kala, sorry, and Bobby Blank Blank.

3:51:42>> Okay.

3:51:45And Hillary Gonzalez.

3:51:49Okay. The first person come, you state

3:51:51your name and you have two minutes for

3:51:54your testimony.

3:51:57Good morning. My name is Andrew Hins. I

3:51:59am testifying as a Baltimore City

3:52:02taxpayer and rateayer. I live on 1400

3:52:05block of Park Avenue. Um I'm asking you

3:52:08to oppose.

3:52:08>> You can pull that up. You don't. Thanks.

3:52:10I'm asking you to oppose this bill and I

3:52:12I submitted written testimony to you but

3:52:15um so Jeffrey Epstein um has said that

3:52:19climate change is a good thing because

3:52:22it's going to be a forest fire that

3:52:25calls the population of the planet. When

3:52:27he said that he was speaking to a

3:52:29leading AI developer and that AI

3:52:32developer agreed with him and in that

3:52:34conversation the both of them agreed

3:52:36that fascism was the way that this could

3:52:38all come about. So, um, there are very

3:52:43powerful people with more money than

3:52:44than anybody else could imagine that are

3:52:47coming for us. They're coming for our

3:52:49water. They're coming for our air.

3:52:52They're coming for our jobs. They're

3:52:54coming for it all. They're coming for

3:52:56the very planet. And they have mass they

3:53:00are building mass surveillance weapons.

3:53:02And they're building drones that can

3:53:03kill us the minute we step out of our

3:53:05door. And against this onslaught, these

3:53:10people that are coming after us, this

3:53:12bill, with all due respect,

3:53:14Councilwoman, is a you're asking us to

3:53:17to defend ourselves with a flatter water

3:53:18with holes in it. Um, it just does not

3:53:21does not even come close to being enough

3:53:25to protect us from these evil people

3:53:27that want everything that we have. So,

3:53:31don't even vote on this bill. Um, the

3:53:34only explanation I can I can come up

3:53:37with for the logic in it is that it's a

3:53:39Trojan horse and um, it is somebody

3:53:43trying to to build a backdoor to get

3:53:46some data centers in here before uh, we

3:53:49realize that they want our whole city.

3:53:52They want our whole planet. Uh, we need

3:53:56to know what's going on.

3:53:59Okay. Before a data center comes here,

3:54:02um I I'll wrap up real quickly.

3:54:05Before it comes here, not only do we

3:54:07need to know they're not going to suck

3:54:08up all our air, electricity, water, make

3:54:10us sick, and make it too noisy, we need

3:54:12to know what they're building in there.

3:54:14If the data centers for defense

3:54:15purposes, mass surveillance, no, we're

3:54:18not going to have it. Thank you.

3:54:20>> Thank you,

3:54:20>> Madam Chair.

3:54:27>> Um you want to wait,

3:54:28>> Councilwoman? I'd rather hear all the

3:54:31testimony and then I'll give you an

3:54:33opportunity to comment from the various

3:54:36comments so we can keep the flow moving.

3:54:39>> Uh, in your Claire,

3:54:42>> are you Claire?

3:54:44>> I'm sorry.

3:54:45>> Are you Claire? I was the sec that was

3:54:48the second name I called.

3:54:49>> I'm sorry.

3:54:51>> Claire

3:54:52is she is Claire here? Oh, okay. We'll

3:54:55cross that off. Sorry. Go ahead.

3:54:58My name is Bobby Blazik. My name is

3:55:00Bobby Blizzick and I'll keep this short.

3:55:03I've lived in Baltimore for most of my

3:55:05life. Um,

3:55:08no matter where I go, this place will be

3:55:10my home.

3:55:12And data centers will be the end of

3:55:15that. And I know this.

3:55:18My parents work full-time. I live with

3:55:21them. and we can barely afford BG&E as

3:55:25it is now with data centers. This will

3:55:28only skyrocket.

3:55:30And so I'm asking and pleading for this

3:55:33council, though I know you're not voting

3:55:35on it right now, but to just dismiss it.

3:55:38We don't need it.

3:55:41And one more thing,

3:55:51you are taking our land, you are taking

3:55:53our water, and you are taking our money

3:55:56for things that we didn't ask for. So,

3:55:59please oppose this. Thank you.

3:56:04>> Hillary, are you Hillary? Go ahead,

3:56:06Hillary.

3:56:09Say your name.

3:56:11>> Good afternoon. My name is Hillary

3:56:12Gonzalez. I represent the People's Green

3:56:14Liberation Coalition. Um, I'd like to

3:56:17thank the chamber for allowing public

3:56:20testimony to go forth.

3:56:23While I've been listening to testimonies

3:56:25while I was looking over the bill, I

3:56:27kept asking myself one question. Why

3:56:29aren't we just strengthening the

3:56:30moratorum?

3:56:32As of this morning, I'd like to be put

3:56:33on the record that um over 8,400

3:56:37Baltimore City residents and voters have

3:56:39signed a petition to ban data centers in

3:56:42Baltimore City.

3:56:44I think that this bill does make the

3:56:46case that we need to at the very least

3:56:49extend the moratorum so that we can

3:56:51allow the study to actually go forward.

3:56:54And I do think that we need a ban of

3:56:56data centers in Baltimore City. That's

3:56:59all I have to say. Thank you so much.

3:57:06The next three people, Rachel Snatch,

3:57:08Emma Ayala, and Taylor Smith Hams.

3:57:16Are any of those people? Please come up.

3:57:20And who are which one are you?

3:57:22>> Uh, I'm Ayala.

3:57:23>> Go ahead. Pull You can pull that down to

3:57:26your Okay. All right. Hi, my name is

3:57:30Ayala and I'm here to oppose uh the

3:57:33bill. Um, as a digital artist and motion

3:57:36designer and an educator at Baltimore

3:57:39School for the Arts, I'm here to talk

3:57:41about how AI is impacting education and

3:57:44digital equity. Um, we actually got a

3:57:46new computer science teacher at BSA this

3:57:49year and within the first week of school

3:57:51he told our film students that chat GPT

3:57:53can write better scripts than them and

3:57:55he told our student our theater students

3:57:57that actors are going to be replaced by

3:57:59AI. I was not shocked to hear this

3:58:02because this is what the goal of these

3:58:04companies and venture capitalists is

3:58:08replacement and dependence.

3:58:11Um

3:58:13overall I would say this, you know, the

3:58:15data center like rushing this bill out

3:58:18before the moratorum um finishes

3:58:21corresponds with like other Baltimore

3:58:23city policies. For example, Baltimore

3:58:26City Schools, it it's the only school

3:58:29district in the state that is partnering

3:58:30with Open AI and not a lot of

3:58:32information was published about that um

3:58:35when that was announced. Uh two weeks

3:58:37ago, the Baltimore City Department of

3:58:40Information and Technology had a talk

3:58:43about um AI in education and the

3:58:47director of information and technology

3:58:51like virtual resources for Baltimore

3:58:53City Schools admitted that they were

3:58:56using AI. They're experimenting using AI

3:58:58for mediating um

3:59:02communication between teachers and

3:59:03students using mental health chat bots

3:59:06and generating up to 50% of IEPs.

3:59:11Um

3:59:13overall uh AI uh AI use corresponds with

3:59:18lower um scores in math, science and

3:59:21literacy across the world. Um and as a

3:59:25you know digital you know teacher a

3:59:28teacher of how kids you know teaching

3:59:30them to use computers I can also see the

3:59:34impacts of hard drives which have

3:59:37literally tripled in the past 9 months

3:59:40>> um because the companies are buying and

3:59:42hoarding materials. Digital equity is

3:59:45creating an environment where kids learn

3:59:47how to use computers in school and

3:59:49receive services from human teachers.

3:59:51Digital equity is a city where people

3:59:53get to own their computers and afford

3:59:56the electricity required to power them.

3:59:58It is not prioritiz prioritizing data

4:00:01centers which siphon wealth, water and

4:00:03electricity from our communities.

4:00:04>> Minutes I gave you extra

4:00:23Rachel Snatch and Taylor Smith Ham, are

4:00:27you still here?

4:00:30Moving forward, the next three, Haley

4:00:33Jacowski,

4:00:35Germaine Heeden, and Sarah

4:00:39O'Harn,

4:00:43and Alexander Smith Burton.

4:00:55Say your name. You have two minutes.

4:00:58>> My name is Haley Jarzinski. I'm a

4:00:59Baltimore City resident. I'm also a

4:01:01Baltimore City teacher and today's a

4:01:03school day. But God sent me here to take

4:01:06off work and educate y'all. AI data

4:01:09centers will kill the next generation.

4:01:11AI data centers will threaten the lives

4:01:14of our children. And I oppose your bill

4:01:17and this colonizer type of thinking. But

4:01:20before I get started, I want to

4:01:21acknowledge that I have the privilege to

4:01:22be here and to do this. And not everyone

4:01:24has that privilege today. I acknowledge

4:01:27that those that are not in the room, the

4:01:29children,

4:01:32everyone's voice deserves to be heard.

4:01:34We deserve equity of voice and holding a

4:01:36public hearing at 9:00 a.m. on a workday

4:01:38does not feel very accommodating to the

4:01:40working class of Baltimore City. I ask

4:01:42you to let me finish my entire speech as

4:01:45this is for the children. Mr. Dorsey

4:01:47spoke much longer than 10 minutes and I

4:01:49think everyone deserves their voice to

4:01:51be heard. I acknowledge those who have

4:01:53come before me, who are here with me

4:01:55today, the ancestors. I thank the waters

4:01:58around us and the waters within us that

4:02:00keep us alive, surviving, and thriving.

4:02:02The waters that feed our community for

4:02:04free. Water that is our God-given

4:02:06birthright. I acknowledge that this land

4:02:08that we are on is stolen land. This is

4:02:10the land of the Piscatoaway tribe.

4:02:13Today, I come to speak for the children

4:02:15because their verse deserves to be

4:02:16heard. AI data centers is a threat to

4:02:18the lives of Baltimore City youth and

4:02:20what you're proposing puts my students

4:02:22and Baltimore City youth at direct risk

4:02:24for harm. They deserve better and we can

4:02:26do better. You do not have consent to

4:02:29build AI data centers in Baltimore City.

4:02:31They take fresh, clean drinking water to

4:02:33cool down their machines. This is sacred

4:02:35water from the children just to power

4:02:37your machines. This is God-given

4:02:39resources, mind you, for the children.

4:02:41All to cool off your man-made stupid

4:02:43machines. James Baldwin said, "The

4:02:45children are always ours, every single

4:02:47one of them, all over the globe. And I'm

4:02:48beginning to suspect that whoever's

4:02:50incapable of recognizing this may be

4:02:52incapable of morality. If you support

4:02:54this bill, then I question your

4:02:55morality. Baltimore City does not play

4:02:57about our children." I want to know who

4:03:00gave you consent.

4:03:02Did you ask the children to take their

4:03:03freshwater reserves? Did you ask their

4:03:05parents what they need?

4:03:07>> Thank you. Could you wrap up, please?

4:03:09>> I'm offended that you limit me to two

4:03:11minutes.

4:03:13You can send in written testimony if you

4:03:16must, but yes, we you only have two

4:03:19minutes. Thank you.

4:03:30Are you Sarah? Are you Sarah? Go ahead.

4:03:34>> I'm Sarah O'Harn. I'm a member of the

4:03:36party for socialism.

4:03:38>> Wait. Yes. You can start over. My name

4:03:41is Sarah O'Harn. I'm a member of the

4:03:43Party for Socialism and Liberation, and

4:03:45I'm here to support the People's Green

4:03:47Liberation Coalition to demand a

4:03:49complete ban on AI data centers in

4:03:52Baltimore. Let's be clear what's

4:03:54happening here. A select few companies

4:03:56in a mad dash to secure their share of a

4:03:59speculative market are trying to

4:04:01convince the rest of us that what's in

4:04:03their interest is actually for the

4:04:05public good. Although proponents point

4:04:07to the hypothetical benefits data

4:04:09centers might bring to the community,

4:04:11these will remain empty promises so long

4:04:13as the ownership of AI infrastructure

4:04:15remains in the hands of a privileged

4:04:16few.

4:04:20Instead of using AI to serve people, its

4:04:22owners will use it to maximize profits.

4:04:24Whether that be by integrating into the

4:04:26war machine, by expanding the

4:04:27infrastructure for mass surveillance, or

4:04:29by automating jobs out of existence,

4:04:32Baltimore residents know these tactics

4:04:33all too well. For years, private

4:04:36developers have used similar arguments

4:04:37to portray naked land grabs in poorer,

4:04:40predominantly black neighborhoods as a

4:04:41public good. Whether it's a program that

4:04:43claims to cure urban blight, but

4:04:45actually expands Hopkins vast real

4:04:47estate holdings or these current pushes

4:04:49for data centers, the processes are the

4:04:51same. The benefits are privatized and

4:04:53the costs are borne by the public. And

4:04:55there will be costs to the communities.

4:04:58These data centers devour electricity

4:05:00and water and they spike demand and util

4:05:02utility cost by their existence. It's a

4:05:04slap in the face to the 300,000

4:05:07Baltimore residents who right now are

4:05:09struggling to pay their BGN bills. Data

4:05:12centers create air and noise pollution,

4:05:14threatening the physical and

4:05:16psychological well-being of those who

4:05:17live near them, as we've seen in

4:05:18Memphis. The solution is not to leave

4:05:21matters of life or death for Baltimore

4:05:22residents up to another study. The

4:05:25solution is not to set up formal

4:05:26roadblocks that slow but do not stop

4:05:29harms that data centers will inevitably

4:05:30cause within our communities. The only

4:05:33solution that can truly serve the public

4:05:35interest is an outright ban on data

4:05:38centers in Baltimore. Thank you,

4:05:44>> Jeremiah Hedon. Jer, I'm sorry. Is your

4:05:48last name Heden?

4:05:49>> Um, Alex Smith.

4:05:51>> Oh, you're Alex. Go ahead.

4:05:54Go ahead.

4:05:58>> Good afternoon. Pardon. [clears throat]

4:06:00Good afternoon, land use committee. I'm

4:06:02Alex Smith Burton, resident over west

4:06:04and student at Morgan State University.

4:06:09The purpose of this committee is to

4:06:10ensure the proposed policies and

4:06:12ordinances that shape our city are in

4:06:14the public's best interest. Each policy

4:06:16is presented to address a problem.

4:06:19I must ask the committee, what issue in

4:06:22the public interest does bill 26

4:06:250147

4:06:27uh address? [snorts]

4:06:29The arguments have been made that this

4:06:32bill will actually provide us

4:06:33protections,

4:06:35but I think that the only solution is an

4:06:38outright ban going forward.

4:06:42Now, the biggest question I have is that

4:06:46why are we having it so that the

4:06:48corporations are the ones who are

4:06:51deciding or doing these studies to tell

4:06:55us what's equitable? Would you go to a

4:06:57tobacco company to go and tell you if

4:07:01cigarettes are healthy? Would you go and

4:07:04reach out to oil companies and listen to

4:07:07their studies to know if climate change

4:07:11is real or not?

4:07:13Legislators have done this before and

4:07:15they have made that mistake of believing

4:07:18those studies when they rely on them. I

4:07:20think even if you just wanted to pose

4:07:24that you wanted to put on the community,

4:07:25you have these corporations fund the

4:07:27communities,

4:07:28but that's besides the point because I

4:07:30think an all-right b an all-right band

4:07:32is the only solution.

4:07:35Um raising temperatures in the city,

4:07:38have people dying constantly. Um and

4:07:41this will only add to that heat

4:07:43pollution, add to noise pollution. Um,

4:07:47it'll not make our our community safer.

4:07:52Um,

4:07:57the temporary financial benefit that is

4:08:00to be had is not worth what it will cost

4:08:02our citizens in the future.

4:08:05>> Thank you.

4:08:10And I'll go back. is Jeremiah Hedon.

4:08:15Okay, moving on. Now, this one is if I

4:08:20mess up, please forgive me. Um, Marie

4:08:24Marifa

4:08:26and the last name is AWS

4:08:30FA.

4:08:33>> Is that you? Come on up. I'm sorry. I

4:08:36You're writing.

4:08:39And before you start,

4:08:45And

4:08:48the last name is Salam.

4:08:53Is that person here?

4:08:55Oh, you want you can get behind them.

4:08:58And then there's another person. The

4:09:00last name is Patterson. Can't make out

4:09:03the first name.

4:09:07>> Um um the last name Patterson. Oh, okay.

4:09:10You can get behind.

4:09:14Oh, go ahead. Say your name and you got

4:09:16your two minutes.

4:09:17>> My name is Marielle Costa and first of

4:09:20all, I would like to start off with the

4:09:21fact that I live paycheck to paycheck

4:09:23and I've already missed seven hours of

4:09:26work to be here. But that's how much

4:09:28this issue means to me. And my first

4:09:30point is what are we still doing here?

4:09:32Honestly, like I don't know why we're

4:09:34still debating this when so many of us

4:09:36have already said how much we don't want

4:09:38data centers or anything related to data

4:09:40centers at all. And before before

4:09:43anybody because I've heard this

4:09:44counterpoint before before anybody

4:09:46starts saying like oh well you use a

4:09:47phone you use the internet checkbait let

4:09:51me just remind everybody that the first

4:09:53public network access computerve

4:09:56released in 1989 which was almost 40

4:09:59years ago the first version of chat GBT

4:10:02released in November 2022

4:10:05so it's been less than five years for

4:10:08this this technology to be shoved into

4:10:11every part of our lives. even though we

4:10:13don't want it. Okay,

4:10:16see people agree with me.

4:10:19So, it's

4:10:22just it's just being slammed into us. We

4:10:24don't want it. I don't know how much all

4:10:26of you are enjoying your little backdoor

4:10:28checks over there.

4:10:31[laughter]

4:10:33But we do not want this. And also

4:10:36anybody that has kids, I want you to

4:10:39look into their eyes later today and

4:10:41really think to yourself, am I willing

4:10:43to put the future of this kid with less

4:10:46clean air, less clean water, less

4:10:49natural environments, all that? Why

4:10:51don't we just be like Calbert County and

4:10:53just ban data centers altogether? Huh?

4:10:55Why haven't we done that yet? Because we

4:10:57should.

4:11:01And yeah, I'll leave it to everybody

4:11:03else. I hope you take my words into

4:11:06mind. I dyed my hair last night so you

4:11:07can remember my face and what I said.

4:11:10Thank you.

4:11:19>> Next.

4:11:20>> All right.

4:11:22Okay. Thank you. Good afternoon,

4:11:23everyone. My name is Dustin Branch. Uh

4:11:25I'm here to testify on behalf of the

4:11:27Chesapeake Climate Action Network Action

4:11:29Fund. Uh for the past year, I've seen

4:11:32and met more and more people rising up

4:11:34and joining in the political process,

4:11:36including many um here for the first

4:11:39time uh to oppose these polluting data

4:11:42centers that are taking advantage of

4:11:45their communities. And it's not hard to

4:11:47see why. Uh just as this room and

4:11:50several others were packed to capacity

4:11:52from the start of this morning almost

4:11:54five hours ago, I saw at least 200

4:11:57people uh not just people that that I've

4:11:59met through the course of my work um but

4:12:01people who are just like me who are

4:12:04overburdened by a cost of living crisis

4:12:07uh that is created by the very same

4:12:09crypto surveillance class that is

4:12:12pushing these data centers uh into our

4:12:15communities and in order to capture more

4:12:18and more market share. Uh here in

4:12:20Baltimore, flock surveillance is here.

4:12:23Uh Peter Teal's uh Palunteer has a

4:12:26contract at a an institution here in the

4:12:30city uh for the most part. Um all I can

4:12:34see there in terms of their

4:12:35contributions is how much they can

4:12:37extract and control uh from people like

4:12:40us. And after using many of these

4:12:42technologies to oppress others overseas,

4:12:45their sights have now turned towards our

4:12:47shores. So we have an opportunity to

4:12:50support the people who have always been

4:12:52here for nearly 300 years. People who

4:12:55are poor, who are disabled, and

4:12:57workingclass Baltimoreans who have built

4:12:59this city uh brick by brick and block by

4:13:02block. So that is why I am and we are

4:13:06proud to be here and support the

4:13:08grassroots advocates who are calling for

4:13:10a ban on data centers here in Baltimore

4:13:12City. Thank you.

4:13:13>> Thank you.

4:13:19>> And your is your first name

4:13:21>> Babatu Babatud?

4:13:23>> Yes. Okay. Close. Babatunde.

4:13:26>> Okay.

4:13:26>> Uh so hi everyone. I'm a resident of

4:13:30Baltimore and an IBW local 24

4:13:32electrician. Uh I just want to second I

4:13:35mean obviously a lot of great points

4:13:37prior to me. Um just from the

4:13:39feasibility size electrician I think

4:13:42it's interesting that we're talking

4:13:43about uh providing pathways towards data

4:13:47center development possibly uh when

4:13:49Maryland imports in 40% of our energy.

4:13:52uh our infrastructure in many places is

4:13:55over 100 years old and so feasibly it

4:13:58doesn't seem logical for us to put

4:14:00additional strain. I think a lot of

4:14:02times we don't make the distinction

4:14:03between hypers scale data centers and

4:14:06the current ones that already exist

4:14:07within Baltimore City and I think that

4:14:09is a very poor oversight. Um

4:14:12hyperscalers uh they take up the power

4:14:15of 80,000 100,000 homes. Uh that's

4:14:17[snorts] not anywhere near what we

4:14:19currently have on the system in the

4:14:20grid. Um, obviously I think we all are

4:14:23concerned about having a grid that

4:14:25works, that's functional. And I think

4:14:27overall what I'm hearing just from the

4:14:29people who are coming here is that the

4:14:32residents of Baltimore want control over

4:14:34their communities. They want to be able

4:14:36to say that they have ownership. Whether

4:14:38that's the reasoning and whether that's

4:14:40in Harford County, I mean Harford Road

4:14:42or just in general, we want the

4:14:45community to have some control over

4:14:46what's happening. and residents clearly

4:14:49are seeing that what actually has

4:14:51control in the city is developers and

4:14:54tech companies whether that's Palunteer

4:14:56whether that's Exxon whether that's

4:14:58Flock and I think that's a that's really

4:15:00truly it speaks to the erosion of the

4:15:03democracy or or the the fact that there

4:15:05isn't one at all and I think ultimately

4:15:07what we're talking about here is that we

4:15:09have a city where 25% of our young men

4:15:12specifically black black men and others

4:15:15right are not working but yet we're

4:15:17talking about again something to enrich

4:15:20uh the shareholders of Wall Street.

4:15:21Thank you.

4:15:23>> Thank you.

4:15:28>> And sorry I didn't say your first name.

4:15:31I couldn't understand your writing.

4:15:33>> Amaya. Amaya.

4:15:35>> Okay.

4:15:35>> Yes.

4:15:36>> Amaya Patterson.

4:15:38>> Good afternoon. My name is Amaya

4:15:40Patterson. I'm a senior marketing major

4:15:42at the illustrious Morgan State

4:15:43University representing National Council

4:15:45of Negro Women in CNW. Allow me to get

4:15:48straight to the point. Data centers are

4:15:50the perfect example of environmental

4:15:52racism. Data centers are usually built

4:15:54in lowincome/wearown communities and if

4:15:57they are built amongst the middle class,

4:15:58that doesn't negate the fact that they

4:16:00continue to use gallons of water and

4:16:02energy needed for those that live around

4:16:03them. Pew Research Center categories

4:16:06categorized 87% of data centers already

4:16:08operating in urban areas right now and

4:16:10while 67% of planned ones are to come in

4:16:13rural rural areas and the Congressional

4:16:16Research Service July 21 on July 31st

4:16:192026 report confirms the US data centers

4:16:23directly consume approximately 17.4

4:16:26billion gallons of water already in 2023

4:16:29more than triple the 5.6 billion gallons

4:16:31consumed in 2014. These centers will

4:16:34continue to use clean free water until

4:16:36there is none left and companies will

4:16:38take that opportunity and capitalize off

4:16:40of it, paywalling it. Marylander's grid

4:16:43energy grid is severely fragile already.

4:16:45Building these facilities put pressure

4:16:46on such a grid and increase electricity

4:16:48bills for residents.

4:16:51These [snorts] data centers make money

4:16:52for private companies while residents

4:16:54bear the consequences such as higher

4:16:56electricity bills, less clean, cheap, or

4:16:58free water, and noise pollution, which

4:17:01causes hearing loss, sleep loss, amongst

4:17:03many other negative effects. Data

4:17:05centers aren't just controversial.

4:17:07They're damaging, and they're

4:17:08destructive to everything around them.

4:17:12I am here to ban I'm here to oppose this

4:17:15and I suggest a ban for building these

4:17:17completely in Maryland. Private

4:17:19companies that need these should use the

4:17:21millions and billions of dollars that

4:17:23they already have to place them far away

4:17:25from anyone around them. They should use

4:17:27their own money to pay for them.

4:17:29Baltimore councilmen and women, please

4:17:32stand firm in what your community needs

4:17:35instead of individualized wants and fear

4:17:38of push back from federal standpoints.

4:17:41Thank you. Thank you.

4:17:49You were you were two minutes right on

4:17:51the nose.

4:17:53Um the next three Noela Whitney

4:17:57um Kellis Baker

4:18:00Galiz. Okay, come on up behind her.

4:18:04Rachel, uh Godson Christina

4:18:09Lumsdy.

4:18:13All right, you're on. Thank you.

4:18:18>> Uh, do I have to hit a button or

4:18:19anything?

4:18:20>> Nope, it's already [clears throat]

4:18:21pushed. Looks like that red.

4:18:24>> All right. Uh, my name is Noella Whitney

4:18:26and I'm a resident of the Laurville area

4:18:28and I'm against any data center

4:18:30development. This goes beyond nimiism,

4:18:32not in my backyardism, as I'm also an

4:18:34electrician apprentice from IBW Local

4:18:3724, the Baltimore chapter of the

4:18:39strongest electrician union in the

4:18:41country. So, I fully understand the

4:18:43economic benefits of these projects.

4:18:45Many of my union brothers and sisters

4:18:47also understand these same benefits.

4:18:49Yet, nearly every single one I know are

4:18:51still against them and refuse to work on

4:18:53them because they understand what's at

4:18:54stake. First, the grid. There was a

4:18:5710-minute East Coast brown out this

4:18:59summer because of our power because our

4:19:01power grid is connected from Chicago to

4:19:02New Jersey to Virginia. And I'm not sure

4:19:04if you're aware, but data centers use

4:19:06massive diesel generators as backup

4:19:08power if their main utility supply isn't

4:19:10enough. When those generators turned on

4:19:12all across Lowden County, the world

4:19:14epicenter for data centers sent a

4:19:16massive cloud of diesel emissions across

4:19:18the eastern Virginia that you could see

4:19:20with your naked eye. So you have a

4:19:22twofold effect here. Not enough power

4:19:23directly causing toxic air. On top of

4:19:26that, one of the larger areas up for

4:19:28discussion in this bill is the largest

4:19:30unbroken expanse of trees in eastern

4:19:32Baltimore, the lower end of Herring Run,

4:19:34where I take my dog to run, which which

4:19:37filters and fixes the polluted air. So

4:19:39it becomes a double whammy of adding

4:19:41pollution and removing rejuvenation

4:19:43capacity. Next, water. Living near Lake

4:19:46Wabell means that I will be a recipient

4:19:48of the Susuana River water supplement to

4:19:51my current supply from the city's normal

4:19:53lock raven supply in response to the

4:19:55drought. The city has stated that there

4:19:57will be no difference in quality. But

4:19:58how can you promise that despite meeting

4:20:00the same drinkability standards when

4:20:02there is no promise it will look, taste,

4:20:04or smell the same? And remember this is

4:20:07just a drought when there are not many

4:20:09data centers already present. So to

4:20:11supply these data centers, we will have

4:20:13to deliver this water also to the west

4:20:15side and lower the water quality for the

4:20:17rest of the city as they suck up our

4:20:18clean reservoir water. Constructed data

4:20:21constructing data centers affects our

4:20:22communities even if they are far from

4:20:24where people make their homes. Air,

4:20:26power, and water. Three things that do

4:20:28not obey borders. And also three things

4:20:30people need to survive. No moratorum, no

4:20:33stricter guidelines. No more. Period.

4:20:36Thank you.

4:20:37>> Thank you.

4:20:44>> Baker.

4:20:46>> Baker.

4:20:47>> Yes.

4:20:48>> Hi, my name is Kalis Baker. Um,

4:20:52I've been a citizen of Baltimore City

4:20:54for

4:20:56>> Oh, my bad. I apologize.

4:20:59>> It's a little hard with this mask on.

4:21:01Um, I do not see how data centers can be

4:21:04beneficial for Maryland citizens,

4:21:06period. And please, for the love of God,

4:21:09don't say it's going to help with jobs.

4:21:12It's not. We could put that to better

4:21:14usage with the construction for the

4:21:16houses in Baltimore instead, or harm

4:21:18reduction facilities instead, but

4:21:22it's destroying everything. It's going

4:21:24to destroy everything. I constantly

4:21:26think about what tomorrow is going to

4:21:28look like, what the water is going to

4:21:29run out looking out of my faucet,

4:21:31knowing that our water will inevitably

4:21:34end up looking like Flint, Michigan's

4:21:35water. And their water still has not

4:21:37been fixed, and it's been over 10 years.

4:21:39For us, this is a way of life, and it's

4:21:42a constant worry that we're going to

4:21:45wake up and know that we can't go

4:21:47outside. We've had the sky be orange

4:21:51multiple times this year and last year,

4:21:53and that's from wildfires. But you get

4:21:56my point. John Hopkins has already

4:21:58invested over 196 million in the

4:22:01development of data centers. I don't

4:22:03understand how a facility that is meant

4:22:04to benefit in our health, how we are

4:22:07supposed to trust a facility with our

4:22:10health information, our data, knowing

4:22:13that they are purposefully going against

4:22:15what we need. The ecological impact

4:22:18alone is is going to be irreversible.

4:22:21It's going to destroy so many cycles.

4:22:24It's going to make sure that it's going

4:22:26to disturb, excuse me, I'm sorry, I'm a

4:22:29little nervous. It's going to exceed

4:22:31noise pollution by 90 dB and water

4:22:34pollution. Water that is going to no

4:22:35longer be reused or recycled. It gets to

4:22:38three other creatures before it gets to

4:22:39us. But after it gets to a data center,

4:22:41it's so chemically irreversibly changed

4:22:44that it can no longer be used. And

4:22:45freshwater's already a finite resource.

4:22:54I don't I don't understand how we could

4:22:57keep going over something that is

4:22:59clearly not meant for people and not

4:23:00meant to benefit the people that is

4:23:02going to be affected by it. Please don't

4:23:05pass this. It's already being

4:23:06implemented. 17 planned data centers are

4:23:09already being implemented. Please.

4:23:11>> Thank you.

4:23:19Rachel,

4:23:21you're on.

4:23:21>> Hi, I'm Rachel Gadson. Um, I am a

4:23:24Baltimore City homeowner and an

4:23:26organizer with Baltimore Public Power. I

4:23:28think people have covered the reasons

4:23:31that we don't want data centers in

4:23:32Baltimore really well. Um, and you know

4:23:34that we already see through this bill,

4:23:37uh, and the idea that it's going to

4:23:39somehow protect residents. But I want to

4:23:41put the bill in the context of

4:23:42Baltimore's industrial history. In 1989,

4:23:45Baltimore approved a brand new

4:23:47state-of-the-art facility that was

4:23:49supposed to solve all kinds of problems.

4:23:51Mayor Schmoke was one of its biggest

4:23:53advocates, regurgitating industry

4:23:55talking points about how it was going to

4:23:56make Baltimore's air cleaner, and city

4:23:58council bulldozed through opposition

4:24:00from residents because the facility was

4:24:02considered necessary. However, they

4:24:06promised a whole bunch of safeguards in

4:24:07the ordinance, including a community

4:24:09advisory board and air quality

4:24:11monitoring and improvement funded by the

4:24:14operators. Since then, the nation's

4:24:17largest medical waste incinerator has

4:24:19been operating in South Baltimore. In

4:24:21the years after it was built, residents

4:24:23watched as city council capitulated to

4:24:25the facility over and over, striking the

4:24:28air monitoring and funding requirements,

4:24:30giving up their oversight powers,

4:24:32striking the import limitations, and

4:24:34then expanding them again because the

4:24:36facility wasn't making enough money. It

4:24:38doesn't seem like the community liaison

4:24:40board was ever even created, but they

4:24:42scratched that requirement, too. So,

4:24:45it's become painfully obvious in recent

4:24:47years. We ended up with another

4:24:49unaccountable poller in an already

4:24:51overburdened area and a revolving door

4:24:54of corporations and investors and

4:24:56limited partnerships and DBAs that

4:24:58ensure that the facility keeps operating

4:25:00and polluting no matter how many massive

4:25:03fines and lawsuits it faces. Not to

4:25:05mention a city council that I can only

4:25:07imagine gets tired of industrial

4:25:10disasters they have no power to stop.

4:25:12Looking back, it's obvious that a few

4:25:14advocates were able to enrich themselves

4:25:16at the cost of generations of residents,

4:25:18like the major shareholder who also

4:25:20worked in the governor's office. And the

4:25:22histories that are being written now are

4:25:24not kind to them. I'd just like you all

4:25:26to keep that in mind. Less sentence

4:25:28promise. History will not be kind to

4:25:30those who sell out their communities and

4:25:32our environment in pursuit of the next

4:25:35big thing. No matter how much rhetoric

4:25:37about community health impacts you

4:25:38employ, we don't want leaders who are

4:25:41going to put a few speed bumps in the

4:25:42road. We want leaders who are brave

4:25:44enough to use spikes. Thank you,

4:25:50>> Christian. Christian.

4:25:52>> Christian,

4:25:54>> you're all

4:25:55>> Hello.

4:25:56>> Um, well, I'm really heartened to see

4:25:59all the people here today.

4:26:01>> Say your name again.

4:26:02>> My name is Christian. Christian L.

4:26:04>> London. Okay. Um, I'm really heartened

4:26:06to see all the people here today. Uh,

4:26:09all of whom seem deeply concerned about

4:26:11integrity and well-being. And I was

4:26:14wondering if I could see a show of hands

4:26:16of who is who thinks data centers are a

4:26:18good thing as they stand right now. I'm

4:26:20making these things.

4:26:21>> We're here to listen to you. So can't

4:26:23ask can't ask questions.

4:26:25>> Okay. Well,

4:26:28um,

4:26:30I guess I share a lot of the opinions

4:26:32that everybody's already shared, so I'm

4:26:33not going to speak on the environmental

4:26:34impacts of these things. I think that

4:26:37real academic studies will bear that

4:26:39out. I do not think industry studies

4:26:41will bear that out. And I think there's

4:26:43an extensive history of industry groups

4:26:46providing and paying for their own

4:26:47studies used as propaganda with millions

4:26:50of dollars behind them distributed to

4:26:52local municipalities against the public

4:26:54well-being. Tobacco institutes fracking.

4:26:58Remember when we had fracking and people

4:26:59said, "Hey, it's going to make all these

4:27:00jobs. We're going to come in and all you

4:27:02bring all this wealth to your economy."

4:27:03And what happened was clear-cut

4:27:05mountaintops, chemicals in our water

4:27:08supply, and workers from out of town who

4:27:11came and left with all the money. And a

4:27:13couple people got rich off of it. And

4:27:15this is the same mentality that the

4:27:18people driving this boat have. If you've

4:27:20read Frankenstein,

4:27:22you know the story of a guy who thought

4:27:23that his well-being and his mission was

4:27:26more important than the consent of

4:27:28anyone else. And in isolation, he was

4:27:31able to do that. It wasn't a story about

4:27:33a monster. It was a story about a man

4:27:35who was unchecked.

4:27:38These people, all you have to do is look

4:27:40at what they've written. People like

4:27:41Peter Teal for the last two decades has

4:27:45been in his musings writing about the

4:27:47transcendence of himself and people like

4:27:50him. He does not care about you.

4:27:54You are only useful to these people as

4:27:57far as you will help them in their

4:27:59agenda. And right now we don't have to

4:28:02go far to see what these are going to be

4:28:04used for.

4:28:06They are already being used for mass

4:28:08surveillance. They are already being

4:28:10used

4:28:12against us.

4:28:13>> Thank you.

4:28:15>> Thank you.

4:28:19>> The next three um Michael Span, [snorts]

4:28:24Sequin Merritt,

4:28:26and Jamar Lloyd.

4:28:37How [clears throat] you doing today?

4:28:39>> Hi, you're Dane.

4:28:40>> Um, I'm Michael Span and um, just want

4:28:43to talk about data centers real quick.

4:28:45So, imagine living in a community where

4:28:47you live for generations. A community

4:28:49that has treated you right, gave you a

4:28:50sense of familiar uh, familiarity and a

4:28:53place you call home. Now, imagine that

4:28:56same community being ransacked. parks,

4:28:58schools, green spaces, and homes all

4:29:00being torn down. You hope it's for the

4:29:03best. You hope your city is trying to

4:29:04take care of you, and you hope it's for

4:29:06the greater good. But then you begin to

4:29:08notice your water changing color, your

4:29:10power running out, your food being

4:29:12unsafe to eat, your air being unre

4:29:15breathable, and the constant noise

4:29:17disrupting your sleep. This is the stark

4:29:20reality. This is when the star reality

4:29:22begins to set in that that the community

4:29:24that you once called home is being torn

4:29:26down and uh [clears throat] becoming

4:29:29uninhabitable.

4:29:31You like majority of Americans live

4:29:33paycheck to paycheck, can't afford to

4:29:35leave to flee these conditions and

4:29:37instead you are forced to bear the brunt

4:29:39of this man-made environmental

4:29:41catastrophe.

4:29:43>> [clears throat]

4:29:43>> watching your health decline, watching

4:29:45your community poison, and feeling

4:29:47helpless in this new age while your

4:29:49rent, grocery, and lively expenses

4:29:52continue to rise.

4:29:54[clears throat]

4:29:56We the people here have gathered to say

4:29:58no. No to data centers, no to poison our

4:30:01communities, and uh no to environmental

4:30:04racism. We don't want a moratorum. We

4:30:07don't want a task force. We want these

4:30:08data centers banned and we want all

4:30:11building and operations of data centers

4:30:13to to cease.

4:30:15[clears throat] To the council, I'm sure

4:30:17you are aware of the risks that that are

4:30:19in place uh for building the for

4:30:21building these data centers. I must ask

4:30:24you, how in good conscious can you

4:30:27approve the building of more data

4:30:28centers? How can you in good conscious

4:30:31approve a bill that will send hundreds

4:30:34and thousands to an early grave? How can

4:30:37you in good conscience willingly poison

4:30:40the very community that you have been

4:30:42elected to protect?

4:30:44>> Wrap [clears throat] up.

4:30:45>> I've got one more line. If it were you,

4:30:49your mother, your grandmother, your

4:30:52children, would you still have the goal

4:30:54to support these bills? I want to leave

4:30:57you with that question and thank you for

4:30:59your time.

4:31:00>> Thank you.

4:31:02Merritt or Louie?

4:31:05Merritt or Lloyd?

4:31:08You're Lloyd.

4:31:09>> Yeah.

4:31:09>> Okay.

4:31:10>> Hi, my name is Joe Mar Lloyd. Um I'm an

4:31:12organizer with Food and Water Watch here

4:31:15representing around 16,000 members that

4:31:16we have in Baltimore City. Um just

4:31:19quickly I want to say I've been working

4:31:20on environmental and water policy issues

4:31:22in Baltimore since I was a student at

4:31:24Morgate University. So about 6 years

4:31:26now. I've never seen this room so full.

4:31:29I didn't even know there was a balcony

4:31:30upstairs. Um I've never seen a line so

4:31:33long. People care about this issue.

4:31:35People are worried about data centers.

4:31:38Um, I won't repeat too much of too much

4:31:39of what has already been said. Um, I do

4:31:42want to say that I am very fearful of

4:31:45data centers being a scapegoat or a way

4:31:48to bring in more

4:31:50gas and diesel fuel plants. Um, we know

4:31:53they use a lot of energy and they want

4:31:54to use dirty energy to do it. In a city

4:31:57like Baltimore where we already have the

4:31:59Brco trash incinerator and CSX coal

4:32:01terminal, we don't need any more air

4:32:03pollution. Uh, point blank in period.

4:32:06Um, diesel fuel also poses a threat to

4:32:09our water. Just last week in New Jersey,

4:32:12a diesel generator which was being used

4:32:14to power a gas plant spilled 5,000

4:32:16gallons of fuel into a local creek that

4:32:19is used as drinking water.

4:32:22Um, we appreciate the moratorum. We also

4:32:25appreciate this bill trying to restrict

4:32:26data centers, but we don't think it goes

4:32:28far enough. We need a longer moratorum.

4:32:30We need a ban. We need to study how data

4:32:33centers can be implemented without

4:32:35having negative effects on our

4:32:36environment, our health, um, and more

4:32:39important and very importantly um, you

4:32:41know, our wallets. If we do these

4:32:43studies, conduct these studies, take the

4:32:45time to actually do them in depth and

4:32:47find out that we can't implement data

4:32:48centers without these negative effects,

4:32:50then maybe we don't need them at all.

4:32:51Thank you.

4:32:57Okay, moving on. The next uh four or

4:33:00five, I'll just say your last names.

4:33:02Galante,

4:33:04Gibbs,

4:33:06Watkins.

4:33:09Um I guess it's Zekes,

4:33:14Black Zeites,

4:33:16first name Ashley.

4:33:18Um, and then

4:33:21Dezel,

4:33:22Desatel is the last name.

4:33:26If you could all stand.

4:33:28>> Okay, if stand, you can uh get in line

4:33:31if I kind of said your last name. I

4:33:35apologize again. I'm looking at the

4:33:37writing.

4:33:40>> Go ahead and Doesn't matter. Just state

4:33:41your name for the record.

4:33:43>> Absolutely. Um, my name is Dia Gibbs and

4:33:45I want to start using a little bit of my

4:33:47two minutes to say that, you know, uh,

4:33:49community residents come here to be

4:33:51heard and seen and to be involved in our

4:33:53the decisions affecting us. Um, and some

4:33:56of the, uh, I don't know, dismissal or

4:33:59attitudes of our elected advocates has

4:34:02been very disappointing today. But with

4:34:03that being said, um, good afternoon. My

4:34:07concern today is bigger than whether the

4:34:08ordinance creates a process. My concern

4:34:10is who holds the power at the end of

4:34:12that process. I've done my research and

4:34:14I have read this bill and while I do

4:34:16appreciate what you are attempting to

4:34:18do, um, we can require a health equity

4:34:22assessment. We can require hearings, we

4:34:24can require community input. But after

4:34:26that assessment is completed and the

4:34:28community has spoken, who actually gets

4:34:29to make the decision? Because the people

4:34:31who have to live next to these

4:34:32facilities, breathe the air, experience

4:34:34the strain on their communities, and

4:34:36live with whatever consequences that we

4:34:38don't even that we aren't even aware of

4:34:4020 years down the line, they are not the

4:34:42people that necessarily get the final

4:34:43say. And history gives marginalized,

4:34:45specifically black and brown communities

4:34:48every reason to question that. For

4:34:50generations, our our neighborhoods has

4:34:51been treated as acceptable sacrifices

4:34:53for society's advancements. Highways had

4:34:56to go somewhere. Industries had to go

4:34:57somewhere. Polluting infrastructure had

4:34:59to go somewhere. And somehow black

4:35:01communities, specifically in Baltimore,

4:35:03is always that somewhere. Um Baltimore

4:35:05has asked black communities to sacrifice

4:35:08for society's advancements before. When

4:35:11the city wanted to build a highway and

4:35:12the richer, whiter neighborhoods

4:35:14declined, this was in the 1970s. Um it

4:35:17was proposed to black neighborhoods

4:35:19where we just as we are doing right now,

4:35:21we said that we were opposed to it. And

4:35:23after three community meetings, 971

4:35:26homes and 62 businesses were destroyed

4:35:28and roughly 1500 residents were

4:35:30displaced in West Baltimore. And after

4:35:32all that, all of that ignoring us and

4:35:36destruction, we got 1.4 miles that we

4:35:39literally called the highway to nowhere.

4:35:42Um, so forgive us. Thank you. So forgive

4:35:45us if a process that allows us to speak

4:35:47but doesn't allow us to side doesn't

4:35:49make us feel protected. So when we are

4:35:51told that this this is a time where that

4:35:54this time there will be a process, I

4:35:55have to ask does that process actually

4:35:57give communities power or does it simply

4:35:59give us an opportunity to speak before

4:36:01someone else dictates what will affect

4:36:02us? If a health equity assessment tells

4:36:05us that a project could harm a

4:36:06community, can that community say no? If

4:36:08residents overwhelmingly oppose that

4:36:11data center, will it still be built? And

4:36:14when economic development and health of

4:36:16Baltimore residents are placed on

4:36:18opposite sides of the scale, what in the

4:36:20legislation guarantees that our people

4:36:21will outweigh the profit? I am wrapping

4:36:23up. Baltimore has the opportunity to do

4:36:25something different. But doing something

4:36:27different means more than just studying

4:36:29equity. It means giving people who carry

4:36:31the consequences meeting for power over

4:36:33the decision, even if that decision

4:36:34hurts pockets or is a pain in the asses

4:36:37that are usually kissed. Thank you.

4:36:44Step on up. Keep it moving. State your

4:36:46name and you have your two minutes.

4:36:49>> Hey, my name is Mars Tamara. I've been,

4:36:51you know, here for about 5 hours, so I'm

4:36:53pretty hungry at this point. But um

4:36:55>> Wait, what is your name?

4:36:56>> Mars Tamara. I I was on the third entry

4:36:59of the first page, so I imagine that I

4:37:01was skipped.

4:37:02>> We're late. Okay,

4:37:05>> go ahead.

4:37:07>> Okay, so hello everyone. As I said, my

4:37:09name is Mars Tamara MSW. So, I want to

4:37:13bring up something very clear. The idea

4:37:16that we can have any sort of health

4:37:18equity with regards to data centers is

4:37:20far in so far that there is nothing

4:37:22acceptable about the health risks of

4:37:24data centers. We need a fullon total ban

4:37:27because this stuff is awful. I'm going

4:37:30to bring up a topic that's going to make

4:37:31people uncomfortable. We are living

4:37:33under an AI data or pardon AI data

4:37:36center economic bubble and we don't know

4:37:38when this thing is going to collapse.

4:37:40But we know something for certain. You

4:37:42have companies that are trying to buy

4:37:43out silicon chips from companies like

4:37:45Nvidia, right? Staking their future in

4:37:4810 years on it. But what happens when

4:37:50that stops? What happens when the

4:37:52investors pull out?

4:37:54Everyone rushes out. Every data center

4:37:57built is going to be abandoned. And soon

4:38:00you're going to have bleached bones and

4:38:01rotting carcasses of a bunch of

4:38:02facilities that are just constructed to

4:38:04catch a hype, to catch a phase. And then

4:38:08immediately we have to strip out the

4:38:10copper wiring from them. We have to deal

4:38:12with all the economic and environmental

4:38:13impacts of them. And then we have to pay

4:38:15for them as the citizens of Baltimore.

4:38:18There's nothing sustainable about this.

4:38:21There is nothing healthy about draining

4:38:23our lakes and revos for the sake of

4:38:27powering something that's going to live

4:38:28for three years before it's taken down.

4:38:34This is all to say

4:38:36this is screwed up. Nothing about this

4:38:39is good for our world. Not the uses of

4:38:42data centers. Well, that's meant to bomb

4:38:44people or to act on farical arrest

4:38:49warrants.

4:38:51Not the way that we're using the water

4:38:53for data centers. Not the way that we're

4:38:55using electricity for data centers, the

4:38:57way we're driving up the bills of people

4:38:59who might be relying on life-saving

4:39:01medical equipment.

4:39:03This is all a sham

4:39:05and it's disgusting. So, I ask that you

4:39:08please,

4:39:10please kindly ban data centers. Thank

4:39:14you.

4:39:20Hi, my name is Ted Eckleston. I

4:39:22submitted written testimony, but I was

4:39:24only able to get here about 40 minutes

4:39:26ago. Eckleston,

4:39:27>> what is your name?

4:39:28>> Eckleston. Ted Eckleston.

4:39:30>> Oh, go ahead.

4:39:31>> Yeah. All right. Thank you. Uh, hi.

4:39:33Thank you so much. Um, I do want to just

4:39:35make something clear here that um, we do

4:39:38believe, many of us believe, I'll speak

4:39:40for myself, that Councilwoman Porter's

4:39:42bill is an important step in this

4:39:45conversation about trying to understand

4:39:47the impacts of these data centers. But

4:39:49we, many of us, as you've heard today,

4:39:51believe that we should just put Thank

4:39:54you. ban them. Put our our energy into

4:39:57writing the right legislation to ban

4:39:59them as a city. become a a national uh

4:40:03image for a city that is willing to take

4:40:05a stand against this and put the

4:40:07creative legislation together to

4:40:09actually ban them and then maybe bring

4:40:10that to the governor because apparently

4:40:12he is flipping his his tone on data

4:40:15centers. We have an opportunity to

4:40:18actually listen to the citizens of this

4:40:21city who are asking for you all the this

4:40:24committee and the city council to ban

4:40:26data centers in this city. They're going

4:40:28to go along the Jones falls, along

4:40:30Herring Run. They're not going to

4:40:31produce the benefits that we want.

4:40:33They're not going to produce the

4:40:34benefits that are promised. So, what I

4:40:36would love to see, and I think many of

4:40:38us would be very happy to champion, a a

4:40:42bill that actually is going to ban these

4:40:43data centers instead of wasting all of

4:40:45our time spinning our wheels asking

4:40:46people to take off work to speak against

4:40:49data centers. And potentially this bill

4:40:52opens the door for them to get their way

4:40:56um and find the legal loopholes. We

4:40:58should be able to just like we did with

4:40:59the nuclear freeze zone in Baltimore

4:41:01City. You cannot work on build

4:41:06like you can debate them and that's the

4:41:07only thing that can happen around

4:41:08nuclear weapons in this city. Why with

4:41:11such an existential risk that AI and

4:41:14data centers pose, why would we not do

4:41:16the same? Thank you.

4:41:20anyone uh in that line that I had called

4:41:24Galante.

4:41:26>> I signed up online [clears throat] then

4:41:27I came in person because I thought it

4:41:28was important.

4:41:29>> What is your name?

4:41:30>> Grand Prix. Lawrence Grand Prix.

4:41:32>> Galante was before you. I want to stick

4:41:35with the way people have signed in

4:41:38because some people signed in before

4:41:40others. So I'm trying to keep the order

4:41:44>> trying to keep the order as you signed

4:41:45in. So you go ahead.

4:41:48Good afternoon as seen council members.

4:41:51My name is Anjeli Galati and I organize

4:41:54faith communities around climate change

4:41:55with interfaith power and light DMV.

4:41:58We've been tracking data center

4:41:59development updates throughout Maryland

4:42:01which I encourage everyone to check out

4:42:03online at iplmv.orgrealwisdom.

4:42:09We know the data center boom is being

4:42:10driven by big tech oligopies, not

4:42:13residents of Baltimore City. Thank you,

4:42:15Councilwoman Porter, for trying to be

4:42:18proactive in anticipating the potential

4:42:20harms and worsening of health inequities

4:42:23that data centers pose in our city. And

4:42:25I also appreciate in advance your future

4:42:27support of a full ban once it's formally

4:42:30introduced. As it's been mentioned, over

4:42:328,000 city residents have signed on in

4:42:35support of a full ban, and probably

4:42:36thousands more will. I'm glad that while

4:42:39well-intentioned, the Health Equity

4:42:41Impacts Assessment Bill's problematic

4:42:42shortcomings as it's introduced have

4:42:45been confronted, and I hope those

4:42:46amendments can be made broadly available

4:42:48soon for better understanding by all.

4:42:50Until then, I urge an unfavorable vote

4:42:53denying the opening of our city's doors

4:42:55to data centers. Before we even consider

4:42:58guard rails or any ways that make it

4:43:00feasible for developers to get their

4:43:02proposals approved, we need an extension

4:43:05of the moratorum. We need better

4:43:06[clears throat] transparency on the

4:43:08timing of the Hopkins Bay View data

4:43:10center project costing state taxpayers

4:43:12$9 million. We need to slow down and

4:43:15wait for the impact study to be released

4:43:19to confirm what we already know that the

4:43:21energy grid constraints, the damning

4:43:23impacts on our wildlife, our ecosystems

4:43:25and our water supply, on our peace and

4:43:28quiet and livable land and future

4:43:30long-term job opportunities. There need

4:43:32not be any rush to circumvent what

4:43:34everyone here is pleading for.

4:43:36Recognition that the real human voices

4:43:39of the residents here and the over 8,000

4:43:41of us that have called for an outright

4:43:42ban need to be heard and held to the

4:43:44highest regard, even if it impacts the

4:43:46development prospects of your potential

4:43:48campaign donors. Thank you so much.

4:43:51>> Thank you.

4:43:53Now, some a lot of people all of a

4:43:56sudden jumped in line before I even

4:43:58called your name. So, we have people

4:44:02that sign up and I want to stay in the

4:44:04names I call are in order of the sign

4:44:07up. So, you're kind of like jumping in

4:44:09front of people.

4:44:11So, um excuse me. I'm running this

4:44:14hearing. So, that comment was

4:44:16unnecessary.

4:44:19I want to go by the way this people

4:44:22sign. Some people signed up before

4:44:24others and I'm trying to and I that's

4:44:26the rule. So, the next person, the last

4:44:29name was Watkins.

4:44:31Is Watkins way in the back? She signed

4:44:35up before all of you. It's a matter

4:44:39that's a matter of respect.

4:44:42Thank you. Go ahead. You're What's your

4:44:45first name?

4:44:46>> Rasha.

4:44:47>> Yeah, go ahead.

4:44:47>> Good evening. I'm asking the council to

4:44:50reject bill 2601.

4:44:54>> Rashanna Watkins. Okay. I am asking

4:44:57council to reject bill 260174.

4:45:01The planning commission staff also

4:45:03recommends disapproval. The health

4:45:05equity assessment in this bill cannot

4:45:07currently do what the bill asked it to

4:45:09do. Planning staff found that the health

4:45:11department does not have the staff

4:45:13technical resources or established

4:45:15method to properly evaluate these

4:45:17environmental and public impacts. Public

4:45:20health impacts. They warned that this

4:45:22could create appearance of protection

4:45:24without the substance of it. That is

4:45:26especially concerning in a city with a

4:45:28documented history of concentrating

4:45:30industrial uses in majority black and

4:45:33lowincome neighborhoods. And the

4:45:35Baltimore in Baltimore residents are

4:45:37already paying financially. Maryland's

4:45:39Office of People's Council says data

4:45:42centers are driving higher energy costs

4:45:44for Maryland customers. It estimates

4:45:46Maryland customers will pay about $1.3

4:45:48billion towards transmission investments

4:45:52primarily driven by data center growth

4:45:54mainly in Northern Virginia. OPC also

4:45:57cites research finding that energy

4:45:59prices grew significantly more data

4:46:01center hotspots between 2020 and 2025,

4:46:05including Baltimore, where they more

4:46:07than doubled. Why should Baltimore

4:46:09residents continue paying for the

4:46:10massive electricity demands of

4:46:12corporations while these corporations

4:46:15make profits? We are already helping pay

4:46:18for data center infrastructure outside

4:46:20of Maryland. Now, this bill will create

4:46:22a pathway for data centers here in

4:46:23Baltimore. We don't want better guard

4:46:26rails for corporations. We want a ban.

4:46:29The public should not pay for the cost

4:46:31while corporations continue to increase

4:46:33their profits. I ask that you reject

4:46:36bill 260174 and permanently ban data

4:46:39centers in Baltimore City. Thank you.

4:46:42>> The next three people were Alice, Lilly,

4:46:46and uh Tamara.

4:46:52Go ahead.

4:46:54>> My name is Andy Ellis. Uh I'm the Green

4:46:56Party candidate for governor and I've

4:46:57been traveling around the state sitting

4:46:59in meetings like this in every county

4:47:00that is having these hearings right now.

4:47:02Um, and what I think is going to be

4:47:04clear is that two years from now when it

4:47:06is election time, you all aren't going

4:47:08to want to sit through two years of

4:47:09these kind of public meetings. There's

4:47:11going to be a ban. There's going to be

4:47:12an extension of the moratorium at some

4:47:14point. And I hope that we can go ahead

4:47:15and do it right now. The problem that

4:47:17this bill poses is that it starts to

4:47:19break the line on the moratorium. And if

4:47:21it goes forward, other people who have

4:47:23ideas about the kind of regulation that

4:47:25should happen before the study are are

4:47:26going to propose their own bills. So all

4:47:28of us are going to have to take off work

4:47:30again to come talk about those bills

4:47:31while we wait for the study to come out

4:47:33and you all to make the inevitable

4:47:35decision that you're going to extend the

4:47:36moratorium or pass a ban eventually. Uh

4:47:39I was here yesterday too and I think

4:47:41that what is being missed is that most

4:47:44of the data centers in Baltimore right

4:47:45now do not meet the definition that is

4:47:47on on the books right now. they're below

4:47:49that 10 megawws and they're there and

4:47:51they're and they're institutional and

4:47:53there's problems like that and we are

4:47:54not talking about that right now because

4:47:57we're talking about this bill which

4:47:59jumps the line in the moratorum and now

4:48:01I I respect the approach that

4:48:03councilwoman Porter is taking on this

4:48:04because the clock is ticking on this

4:48:06moratorum and in a year from now I guess

4:48:09nine months from now we're not going to

4:48:10have any six months from now we're not

4:48:13going to have any protection so I

4:48:14understand the impetus to put something

4:48:16in place but the answer uh that I think

4:48:18your bill poses or the the the question

4:48:21that I think your bill poses is what do

4:48:22we do when it runs out? And I think the

4:48:24answer is don't let it run out. Either

4:48:26extend it right now or pass a ban so

4:48:29that we can start talking about what the

4:48:31GBC says the industry wants to do with

4:48:33Baltimore, which is get smaller edge

4:48:35data centers in here that also have

4:48:37impacts and things like that or so we

4:48:39can start talking about the Hopkins bill

4:48:40that is going to be the Hopkins data

4:48:42center that is less than 10 megawatts.

4:48:44We're missing the people who actually

4:48:46want to come here and build these things

4:48:48because we're talking about data centers

4:48:49that are probably never going to come

4:48:51here. We're never you all aren't going

4:48:52to allow hyperscale data centers before

4:48:54the your 2028 election. This kind of

4:48:57room shows that that's true. Thank you.

4:48:59>> Thank you.

4:49:02>> Uh you're

4:49:04>> my name is Deon Lai. Um I oppose the

4:49:06bill. Um in the words of the great

4:49:08Frederick Douglas, he said, "I rather

4:49:10build strong children than heal the

4:49:11hearts of broken men." And we build

4:49:12strong children by opposing data

4:49:14centers. And now my words entitled no

4:49:16means no. No means no. Baltimore city

4:49:19schools may have failed many of us, but

4:49:20the people are not slow. Whether it's

4:49:22Maryland public service commission, BGE,

4:49:24Pepco, GBC can do slideshow after

4:49:26slideshow. Data centers are a no-go. All

4:49:29we hear is rate pay this cost doing of

4:49:32that. Ain't no tit for t. How come every

4:49:34time it's black constituents, it's all

4:49:35this chitter chat? I mean that. The

4:49:37energy conglomerates know this is a

4:49:39hidden tax. Oh, hear us out. Just relax.

4:49:41Enough of that. When you see nonprofits

4:49:43and pilot programs, just know somebody

4:49:45in office is under contract. Over here,

4:49:47we cut no slack. Our communities don't

4:49:49want them. That's just a fact.

4:49:58>> You were standing there so patiently.

4:50:01>> I appreciate it. Um I was online. I saw

4:50:03wanted to come in person because I saw

4:50:04what's important. Lawrence Grand Prix

4:50:06leaves our beautiful struggle. We

4:50:08support a data center ban because we've

4:50:10come to believe data centers pose an

4:50:11existential threat not just to climate

4:50:13but also to community

4:50:14self-determination. The era where these

4:50:16people ask for tax breaks is done. They

4:50:18are now in an era of promising massive

4:50:20tax infusions to desperate

4:50:22jurisdictions. In that world, Baltimore

4:50:24becomes a prime area for someone to

4:50:27target a data center profusion. And in a

4:50:29world where your tax base depends upon a

4:50:31industry like data centers, you lose

4:50:33your community self-determination

4:50:34because they can always threaten to

4:50:35leave taking your tax base with them.

4:50:38Additionally, when AI companies say they

4:50:39want to work with public governance,

4:50:41they're threatening things like public

4:50:42sector jobs, which are the heart of the

4:50:44black middle class. This is not a

4:50:45possibility. This is their stated

4:50:47business model, putting folks out of a

4:50:49job and taking the revenue for

4:50:50themselves. When that's the black middle

4:50:52class and they are in your city, you're

4:50:54hollowing out the tax base that could

4:50:56actually bring people to live in these

4:50:58communities, people won't want to live

4:50:59there because they have data centers

4:51:00next to them. The black and white light

4:51:02that comes with even small data centers

4:51:04will hurt the tax base, hurting the very

4:51:06uh thing we're trying to solve for

4:51:08bringing these data centers in. I

4:51:09understand the concern about the

4:51:10constitutionality of a ban, but in a

4:51:13world where you're dealing with a

4:51:14trillion dollar corporation, it's best

4:51:16to stand on solid ground with the

4:51:18community and use that as a point of

4:51:20leverage for any negotiation. You can

4:51:22ban not just data centers, but any

4:51:23industry that has a massive tax on water

4:51:26and the grid and then condition the

4:51:27possibility of building them on their

4:51:29ability to invest in water, invest in

4:51:31the grid, and public ownership of

4:51:33whatever they produce. If we don't have

4:51:35public ownership of data centers, we

4:51:37will cut our tax base by supporting AI

4:51:40that thought that the Dorito chip bag

4:51:42that kid had was a gun. I don't want to

4:51:44tax break that bad to be supporting that

4:51:45type of surveillance. So, we need to

4:51:47stand on st firm ground and ban data

4:51:50centers. Even if it's just for the

4:51:52position of having leverage for anything

4:51:54that is to come because we cannot use

4:51:56simply the health equity framework. We

4:51:58must use a ban framework to demand

4:52:00community self-determination and

4:52:01ownership over anything that's built in

4:52:03our city. Thank you.

4:52:06Pop Papa

4:52:09Brown is the last name or Lincoln

4:52:14Wilson.

4:52:15Miles

4:52:18Ley Daly

4:52:22>> Okay. And Mueller,

4:52:25>> if you could line up.

4:52:26>> Yes.

4:52:27>> Yes.

4:52:31>> Now, was she before me?

4:52:32>> Go ahead. Which one? I did I just call

4:52:35your name?

4:52:35>> Okay. I wasn't sure cuz there was an

4:52:37order earlier.

4:52:38>> Go ahead. State your name.

4:52:39>> Um my name is Kenisha Dailyaly and I

4:52:42organize with People Power Assembly of

4:52:44Baltimore. Um I disagree with this bill

4:52:47even being introduced um at a time where

4:52:50there is numerous reports of the city's

4:52:52withering infrastructure. I wonder why

4:52:55are we considering zoning for a data

4:52:57center? What are the benefits to the

4:52:59people of Baltimore? Will it lower cost

4:53:01and utilities? Will it help with health

4:53:03care, transportation, child care? What

4:53:07material conditions will be changed by

4:53:10this data center? Or will it be able to

4:53:13help further kill black Baltimoreians?

4:53:16Will it further assist with surveillance

4:53:20tech? Will it help out the Pentagon,

4:53:23which it already has dealings in the

4:53:25south of Baltimore with the autonomous

4:53:27ships? Will it assist our state and

4:53:31federal partners? I think we are failing

4:53:34when we are expecting a corporation to

4:53:36be honest and to bring their own

4:53:39electricity and to be transparent with

4:53:41the people that live here. While they

4:53:44outsource materials such as car, copper,

4:53:47gold, and additional conductors that may

4:53:50be also imported from Congo.

4:53:54While it sounds like the government has

4:53:57signed wiggle room for corporations to

4:54:00exploit us, um it's already sounding

4:54:04like there's not enough people to study

4:54:06the effects of it in the health

4:54:09department in Baltimore. Um on the other

4:54:12hand, PJM also stated that they are it's

4:54:16hard for them to keep up with the

4:54:20um the growth of data centers. They said

4:54:23this yesterday at the hearing. They also

4:54:27said that um in an ABC article, they

4:54:30said that it's hard to keep up with the

4:54:32data centers. And not only do they uh

4:54:36give us energy, also energy in Kentucky,

4:54:40Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey,

4:54:44all over Gary, Indiana sat in darkness

4:54:47for two weeks. Memphis also sat in

4:54:50darkness. All of this is happening while

4:54:53there is unpredicted weather patterns

4:54:55happening as well. So what will happen

4:54:58if there is a storm that knocks out the

4:55:00power grid for Baltimore? How long can

4:55:02the residents survive without

4:55:04electricity or oxygen? How long

4:55:08>> wrap up wrap up.

4:55:09>> Okay, I'm just skip to the end. Frankly,

4:55:13I am tired of getting experimented on.

4:55:16There is no solid concrete way that data

4:55:19centers are improving our environment at

4:55:22all. I understand it's fun to

4:55:24hypothesize new futuristic technologies,

4:55:27but we have to ensure the future is here

4:55:31that we're planning for. Thank you,

4:55:38>> Papa Brown.

4:55:41Oh, yes.

4:55:43I don't know. Okay, it's on. All right.

4:55:45Hello. Um,

4:55:48good afternoon.

4:55:50I'm here with my fellow Baltimoreians

4:55:52today to ask the commission to not

4:55:55consider a backdoor green light policy

4:55:58to allow data centers to be built in our

4:56:00city. This is in reference to bill

4:56:0226174.

4:56:06Baltimore is in the midst of a drought

4:56:08presently and an AI data center on

4:56:10average for a medium-siz facility 10 to

4:56:1320 megawws may use up to 110 million

4:56:16gallons per year while a hypers scale

4:56:19campus can consume up to 5 million

4:56:21gallons per day equivalent to the water

4:56:25use of a town of 10 to 50,000 people.

4:56:29Baltimore residents have already

4:56:30experienced the highest water bill rates

4:56:33in the state for the past 25 years with

4:56:37the average household now spending

4:56:39between $130 and $140 per month. How can

4:56:43we assure that an addition to an with

4:56:46the addition of an AI data center of any

4:56:48scale will not put an additional strain

4:56:50on this already strained precious

4:56:52commodity and that Baltimoreans will not

4:56:55be left holding the bag for

4:56:56infrastructure needs of these centers

4:56:59and increased water rates. Additional

4:57:01strain on our grid for the electricity

4:57:04needs of our city and its people are

4:57:06also a problem with having AI data

4:57:08centers in Baltimore City or in Maryland

4:57:11for that matter. BGE rates are already

4:57:14astronomical for residents with some

4:57:16residents choosing to keep the lights on

4:57:19instead of getting muchneeded food and

4:57:21prescriptions.

4:57:23The PSC as well as the city has had

4:57:25little effect on BGE rate hikes, on

4:57:28delivery rates and infrastructure

4:57:29improvements. And these costs have been

4:57:31directly pushed by the company onto the

4:57:34consumers of Baltimore and Maryland for

4:57:36the past 30 years. It is time to

4:57:39reeregulate this utility or Baltimore

4:57:42needs to seriously think about a power

4:57:45company owned by our own city and our

4:57:48own

4:57:49Baltimore.

4:57:51This is so Baltimore residents stop

4:57:54footing the bill for this rogue utility

4:57:56which has made a profit of $553 million

4:57:59in 2025. Please consider tableabling

4:58:03this devised fake guardrail legislation

4:58:07until the study of data centers is

4:58:09completed by the commission set up to

4:58:11investigate the environmental and health

4:58:12harms that these type of facilities pose

4:58:15for already marginalized communities in

4:58:17Baltimore and Baltimore as a whole. I

4:58:20want you to remember after all

4:58:22Baltimore's treasure is its people

4:58:30>> Wilson. I'm sorry. What are you saying?

4:58:34>> Oh, go ahead.

4:58:36>> Hi, I'm Ann Wilson. Um, is this my

4:58:40timer?

4:58:41>> Yeah, go ahead.

4:58:42>> Um,

4:58:44thank you, Madam Chairwoman and members

4:58:46of the committee. My name is Anne

4:58:48Wilson. I live in district 14. I'm here

4:58:52to oppose 2600174.

4:58:55Um I'm a volunteer advocate for

4:58:56environmental justice. Um originally

4:58:59with Sunrise Movement and then uh since

4:59:01then with Clean Water Action, Food and

4:59:02Water Watch, um numerous other groups

4:59:05and I support the uh Baltimore public

4:59:08power campaign. Um I was not able to

4:59:11understand every word of the amendments

4:59:13that were introduced but I cannot

4:59:15imagine a universe in which it is

4:59:18acceptable to give the data center

4:59:20companies the uh responsibility of

4:59:24conducting the health equity

4:59:26assessments. If uh if if that is what is

4:59:28being proposed that is reason enough to

4:59:31um just reject this proposal outright.

4:59:34Um, I do want to touch on um, uh,

4:59:38something that's been raised by other

4:59:40speakers, which is that this week I,

4:59:43like many other Baltimoreans, received

4:59:45an email from the city government

4:59:47informing me that the city will be

4:59:49drawing water from the Susuana River

4:59:51because we are in an extended drought

4:59:53and our three reservoirs cannot keep up.

4:59:56Um, the first time this happened, as uh,

4:59:59as far as I can tell from available

5:00:01information, um, was back in 1966.

5:00:04The next time wasn't until 1999. And

5:00:07then additional drawing from that river

5:00:09was in 2002 2007. We're not on a good

5:00:13trajectory. We should not even be

5:00:15talking about citing data centers here

5:00:17when we know that many of these data

5:00:19centers require a great deal of water. A

5:00:21midsize data center uses as much water

5:00:24as a thousand homes in a single day. and

5:00:28um that is not a situation that uh

5:00:30really gives us room to be talking about

5:00:32having data centers in our city. So I do

5:00:35support a ban, but I also ask that you

5:00:37reject this bill um and and accept the

5:00:40original planning commission staff

5:00:43recommendation. Thank you.

5:00:48>> Go ahead. You've been standing. Are you

5:00:51Miles or Mil?

5:00:52>> Um May.

5:00:55>> May last name May. We signed up to

5:00:57>> Oh, go ahead.

5:00:58>> Uh, good afternoon. I'll be brief. My

5:01:00name is Abby May and I'm a homeowner and

5:01:02a new business owner, new business owner

5:01:05in Councilman Blanchard's district. Um,

5:01:08and I'm here to very strongly oppose the

5:01:11conditional use zoning for data centers.

5:01:13This kind of conditional use does not

5:01:15ensure unwavering environmental

5:01:16restrictions or water cost protections

5:01:19for residents. And voting favorably for

5:01:20data centers does not promise any jobs

5:01:23or money coming into city residents. It

5:01:25simply provides a pathway of least

5:01:27resistance for these unwanted data

5:01:29centers to invade our city against the

5:01:30will of the people. You already know

5:01:33that they're loud. You already know that

5:01:34they're environmentally destructive. You

5:01:37already know that they're affecting

5:01:39housing values. You already know we have

5:01:41zero long-term data regarding waste and

5:01:43human health. And you already know that

5:01:45the financial burden of massive water

5:01:47waste will fall on the taxpayers of

5:01:49Baltimore City. Once a data center is

5:01:52constructed, there is no conditional use

5:01:54anymore. It's there. It already

5:01:56happened. It's not going to get torn

5:01:58down if they break the rules. They're

5:01:59going to drag the city and its residents

5:02:01through legal loopholes, and they'll pay

5:02:02their fines for as long as it takes. And

5:02:05the only losers will be the residents of

5:02:06the city of Baltimore who have no

5:02:08control.

5:02:10There were so many people here today

5:02:11that have been sitting in for hours in

5:02:13overflow rooms to oppose this

5:02:16conditional use zoning. My understanding

5:02:18is that people were still coming in

5:02:19through security almost two hours deep

5:02:21into this meeting in the middle of a

5:02:24workday to make sure that you see us

5:02:26because you represent us. So I promise

5:02:29we don't care if you find our need to

5:02:31hear you and be heard in this room as

5:02:33impolite. You are at work. We took off

5:02:36work. Thank you.

5:02:42>> Miles your Miles. Yeah. Kieran Miller.

5:02:48All right. So, have y'all heard this

5:02:51quote uh from anthropic alignment lead

5:02:55Evan Human name? We really do honest

5:02:59earnestly believe AI could kill all

5:03:02humans. I personally think it's an above

5:03:0510% chance within the next decade.

5:03:08I'm here to say maybe let's not.

5:03:11[clears throat]

5:03:13Maybe. Okay. I have a lot of respect for

5:03:15a ruling that you made earlier today in

5:03:18Waverly where you decided to not allow a

5:03:21building on public property.

5:03:26This brings up the same issue where we

5:03:28have theft of natural public space and

5:03:31it is going to bring pollution. is going

5:03:33to bring oppressive, loud, perpetual

5:03:36hum, as well as, as everyone has said,

5:03:39the guzzling of our water resources, the

5:03:41raised cost of energy and water that is

5:03:43passed to the residents. And let's be

5:03:45honest, there is nowhere in Baltimore

5:03:48where you could put an AI data center

5:03:50without it poisoning the community's

5:03:52water. There is not one place in the

5:03:54city where that would be safe.

5:03:58So, as someone said before, I'm not here

5:04:01for the not in my backyard. I am here

5:04:03for demanding an outright ban for data

5:04:06centers.

5:04:08Thank you for your time.

5:04:13>> Muller or Mueller

5:04:17is um the first name Andrew

5:04:24[cough]

5:04:26and while he's coming up um Selzer

5:04:34you're next. And

5:04:38there's a last one that I really can't

5:04:42understand the writing, but uh you go

5:04:45ahead.

5:04:47>> Uh good afternoon. Uh for the record,

5:04:49Andrew Zurkl. Um I am here on behalf of

5:04:52the Maryland Technology Council.

5:04:54Maryland Tech Council is Maryland's Life

5:04:57Sciences and Technology Trade

5:04:58Association. We represent over 800

5:05:01companies that do business and employ

5:05:03people here in Maryland. And our

5:05:05membership represents tens of thousands

5:05:07of Marylanders employed, including uh

5:05:10many in the city of Baltimore. Um I just

5:05:12wanted to say I appreciate the

5:05:14counciloman's uh bill. Uh the Maryland

5:05:17Tech Council came in supportive with

5:05:19amendments. Um this is rare among our

5:05:22wide membership which ranges everything

5:05:24from life sciences technology but we're

5:05:27coming in here and asking you please

5:05:29regulate us right

5:05:32please regulate us. There are

5:05:34responsible actors in the data center

5:05:36industry and what we are asking for is

5:05:39for a pathway to development. We want

5:05:41data centers to present the maximum

5:05:43possible benefit for the communities

5:05:46that they're in with the minimal

5:05:49possible impact. Um, I know we've

5:05:52appeared before the council and

5:05:53communicated before some of the benefits

5:05:55of jobs and revenue. I won't go over all

5:05:57of those again. Um, but I don't think I

5:05:59need to repeat there are many localities

5:06:02in the state of Maryland that are

5:06:03dealing with revenue challenges and data

5:06:06centers present a fantastic solution to

5:06:08bring in more tax revenue and ensure

5:06:11that everything that needs to be funded

5:06:13from schools to public safety to

5:06:14infrastructure is funded. Data center

5:06:17construction helps build a robust local

5:06:20workforce in the trades and that

5:06:22workforce doesn't go away when it's time

5:06:24to build things like housing. Um, one

5:06:27additional thing I'd like to bring up is

5:06:28that, you know, I've heard a lot about

5:06:30developments in Gary today, in Memphis.

5:06:34We don't want Maryland, we don't want

5:06:36Baltimore to be Gary or Memphis. We need

5:06:38to take the steps to make sure that we

5:06:40are enabling responsible development.

5:06:43Um, one final thing I'll mention is that

5:06:46um, data centers are a cornerstone for

5:06:49Maryland's high-tech industry. And if we

5:06:51can't site data centers here, we may see

5:06:54our members their jobs go elsewhere.

5:06:56Thank you very much.

5:06:57>> Thank you.

5:06:59Uh Selzer

5:07:03can't see you. Oh, there. Okay.

5:07:05>> Anybody here from John's Hopkins

5:07:06University or hospital?

5:07:09>> Please come and testify. You can pull

5:07:12that down a little. So,

5:07:14>> okay.

5:07:14>> The top part. Perfect.

5:07:17>> Okay. Um approximately 200 years ago,

5:07:20there were five uh elite women in

5:07:23Baltimore that uh saved John's Hopkins

5:07:29uh hospital and university from

5:07:31bankruptcy. And there would not be a

5:07:34John's Hopkins if it wasn't for those

5:07:37five women. They wanted Baltimore City

5:07:40residents, citizens to have access to

5:07:45health care. That does not happen with

5:07:48John's Hopkins. This is all about John's

5:07:52Hopkins having a data center.

5:07:55This is um from their website.

5:08:00John's Hopkins University is based in

5:08:02Baltimore, but are 10 divisions spread

5:08:04out across nine campuses on three

5:08:06continents. You do not have to step foot

5:08:09in Baltimore in order to get a doctorate

5:08:13um u become a doctor. you can be a

5:08:15doctor of John's Hopkins with John's

5:08:18Hopkins University uh credentials in

5:08:22China and in Italy

5:08:25and um and everything is spread out and

5:08:28meanwhile John's Hopkins has greatly

5:08:31reduced the number of jobs here in

5:08:34Baltimore City including a friend of

5:08:36mine [clears throat] Susan Gastenega

5:08:38that they completely got rid of her her

5:08:41departments and other departments.

5:08:45And while John's Hopkins, if you go to

5:08:48their boardroom, you would hear about

5:08:51world domination. They are not

5:08:53interested in Baltimore. And just as the

5:08:56first line I read to you, well based in

5:08:58Baltimore, we have 10 divisions.

5:09:03We are about global domination. and they

5:09:07want their data center because because

5:09:10Baltimore City Council rolls over for

5:09:13everything that they want just like um

5:09:16you chaired a meeting regarding the the

5:09:20sidewalks that they have public.

5:09:25>> Okay. And I want to call on Councilman

5:09:28James Torrance, who never shows up for

5:09:30anything challenging. And I I want him

5:09:33to be removed from the housing committee

5:09:36chair, and I want him to resign

5:09:39immediately.

5:09:40I live in

5:10:10So, um, there were two other people on

5:10:14this list that I can't mention. I can't

5:10:18say your name, but if you want to come

5:10:20up and testify, this is your time.

5:10:25And then I have a final statement. And

5:10:28then we have also have some people

5:10:30online and then we'll have the sponsor

5:10:34of the bill speak.

5:10:39>> Oh, what

5:10:42that red has turned red.

5:10:45>> Oh, thank you.

5:10:46>> There we go.

5:10:47>> My name is Karen Smith. I apologize for

5:10:49my handwriting if it wasn't legible. Um,

5:10:51I'm here to oppose the bill because like

5:10:54many here, I don't want studies or

5:10:56moratoriums or task force. I want a

5:10:58total and complete ban on data centers

5:10:59in Baltimore City, statewide,

5:11:02nationwide. Uh, the ubiquitous argument

5:11:05for data centers uh in data

5:11:08infrastructure is that what if we get

5:11:10left behind? But why would I want to

5:11:13venture into the future that data

5:11:14centers provide? What do we leave behind

5:11:18by capitulating?

5:11:20We will be left behind without portable

5:11:22water. We will be left behind with

5:11:24respiratory illnesses caused by

5:11:26pollution. We'll be left behind with the

5:11:28noise produced by data centers. We will

5:11:31be left behind with the energy bill

5:11:33skyrocketing for unreliable electricity

5:11:35to cover data center drain. We will be

5:11:38left behind with higher taxes because

5:11:40John's Hopkins University won't pay

5:11:42their fair share to the city. We will

5:11:45leave behind our non-citizen neighbors

5:11:47who to be prayed upon by the

5:11:48surveillance infrastructure that data

5:11:50centers provide. We will leave behind

5:11:53Palestine where the genocide is powered

5:11:55by big tech companies like Palunteer. We

5:11:58will leave behind any civilian to the

5:12:00mercy of cold data like the Iranian

5:12:03school children who were bombed after

5:12:04our military followed the advice of the

5:12:06AI claude.

5:12:08Nothing is worth this. Any data center,

5:12:12regardless of its ownership or its

5:12:13purpose, makes our city or our world

5:12:17makes our city and our world a worse

5:12:19place to live in. You can't pretend it

5:12:21will be limited to a quote unquote

5:12:23industrial center where people still

5:12:25live. The health, environmental, and

5:12:28inhumane effects will still leech out.

5:12:31And these data center, the data these

5:12:33centers collect is going to be used to

5:12:35overp police and wreak hav violent

5:12:37destruction anywhere it is used. I want

5:12:40a complete ban or we will be left behind

5:12:42in the hell that we've created. Thank

5:12:44you.

5:12:52>> Thank you. Um pre press that button.

5:12:58>> Um my name is Ted Rose Da L. I'm

5:13:01currently a member of IBW local 24 and

5:13:04also a member of EWC EWMC electrical

5:13:07workers minority caucus which spans

5:13:09across the entire country um which

5:13:11currently has a local and within as

5:13:14affiliate to IBW 24. All right, first

5:13:16thing being said um I'm not going to

5:13:19address the bill only because I think

5:13:20that you already discovered after

5:13:22yesterday and today after the

5:13:23conversation and definition of what data

5:13:25centers are, I think they ended up

5:13:26changing whether the claim would be to

5:13:28even push it in the first place. And in

5:13:30that case, I would just focus on the

5:13:31fact that you want a ban. That's all

5:13:32there is to it. We want a ban.

5:13:34>> I'll address that shortly.

5:13:35>> So, so going with that, um, adding to

5:13:38that, I think there's a a key point that

5:13:41a lot of people are not paying attention

5:13:42to. I discovered this in Baltimore

5:13:44County. I am from Baltimore County,

5:13:45right? So, I'm here as a visitor. So, I

5:13:47mean, not to offend anybody here that

5:13:49feel like I should not be here, but let

5:13:50me just go here. when they're going to

5:13:53push data centers in Lockern and

5:13:56Randlestown in Woodlon, right? And you

5:13:59see these percentages and you see most

5:14:01of it being people who are non-white

5:14:04and then now you see Baltimore City also

5:14:06being approached in a certain kind of

5:14:07way that just it just doesn't look look

5:14:09right. You know, at some point you got

5:14:12called spade to spade. It's not it's not

5:14:13to the point where I'mma move or decide

5:14:15or or decide to deal with you based on

5:14:17me finally discovering your intent. It

5:14:19don't it don't work like that no more.

5:14:20Nobody outright says it to you what they

5:14:22choose to want to do, how they choose to

5:14:24look at you and what they want to do to

5:14:25you. They just do it. So it's the same

5:14:27with how ants is. Ants are not going to

5:14:29question an invader. You just going to

5:14:31just team up and get rid of. It's all

5:14:33there is to it. So at this point, when

5:14:34you see that there's obviously an

5:14:36immediate affliction upon people who

5:14:38have been dealing with afflictions in

5:14:39Baltimore City since redlinining,

5:14:40disinvestment, so on so forth, you just

5:14:42got to attack. That's all there is to

5:14:44it. They're not allowed to be here

5:14:45unless we say so. So now going with

5:14:48that, I'm in IBW. I think I think people

5:14:52need to understand that it's the workers

5:14:54that's being missed in this. All this

5:14:56work, all the stuff that he's talking

5:14:57about and everybody else is still being

5:14:59done by the construction workers. Where

5:15:01are we in that? I think as all of you,

5:15:04everyone council person in here needs to

5:15:06pay attention to that. Where is

5:15:07Baltimore City within organized building

5:15:10trades? That's it.

5:15:12>> Thank you.

5:15:16given last chance for anyone who didn't

5:15:18sign up before I make my statement

5:15:23and uh then we'll have the sponsor. Oh,

5:15:25I mean we'll have the online then the

5:15:28sponsor. I first wanna, you know, I

5:15:31apologize if I feel like if you feel

5:15:34like I'm

5:15:36um not handling this hearing or not

5:15:40giving you, but I want to just give you

5:15:42some context of this chambers quickly

5:15:46and this building.

5:15:48We have a history. We've had three

5:15:51council members basically murdered or

5:15:55killed in this building. one, two were

5:15:59actually in the building, one was

5:16:01outside

5:16:03and this was a while ago and we had to

5:16:07implement some strict guidelines and

5:16:11rules and respect because this is this

5:16:15is a public hearing but it is handled

5:16:17like a court hearing. We have agencies

5:16:21we have and all of this is done for the

5:16:24protection of all of us in here.

5:16:27And the times that especially the times

5:16:30that we are in now, this is all about

5:16:34protection and running things in a

5:16:36timely manner, getting your voice heard

5:16:40in many ways. So if you still have more

5:16:42to say about this, send something in

5:16:45writing. There are many forms of us

5:16:49hearing what you say. And when you come

5:16:52and testify,

5:16:54speak before the body here. what's

5:16:56remaining. Speak before the body here.

5:16:59We're listening.

5:17:01I We said earlier, we're not going to

5:17:03decide. We're not going to vote on

5:17:06anything this and particularly data

5:17:08centers, we know that it is a very

5:17:12touchy subject. Um the people and the

5:17:17sponsors that um work on, you know,

5:17:21trying to bring this issue to the

5:17:23public, we have a moratorum. It's a lot

5:17:25to go through, but we are willing to

5:17:29step up and listen and like someone

5:17:32said, get the conversation started some

5:17:35kind of way, but we need to maintain a

5:17:38level of time and a level of respect.

5:17:41So, I just wanted to kind of make that

5:17:44here clear. We are here also

5:17:47representing the people but we are in a

5:17:50building that you need order and you

5:17:54need a certain process and all of that

5:17:57is set up as a legal system. So,

5:18:02um, you know, if if you just got to

5:18:06understand that that's just part of the

5:18:08way things happen in here and

5:18:10particularly the protection of the

5:18:13people and what they have to say and

5:18:16what our opinions are too as

5:18:18representation. It's all about

5:18:21respecting each other. And on that note,

5:18:24we're going to I know we have some

5:18:26people

5:18:28testify. it was. So, it's down to eight.

5:18:31Okay. So, we have eight people

5:18:35and uh the people that have been

5:18:37listening to all this, you have just two

5:18:40minutes as well. And um

5:18:44um if it's something that you have been

5:18:46listening to and you're just kind of

5:18:48repeating

5:18:50um and you feel you don't have to really

5:18:53say it, you can still send it in and

5:18:56we'll start. And again, if I say your

5:18:58name wrong or mispronounce it, just let

5:19:00me know. The last name is Day. D E Y.

5:19:06>> Yes. Zia Day.

5:19:08>> Go ahead. You're on two minutes.

5:19:11>> Okay. Um, for most of what was covered

5:19:15already, um, we all know that this is

5:19:19going to be primarily an attack on

5:19:22people in predominantly black

5:19:24neighborhoods. And I'm very happy to see

5:19:27that everybody of color is here today

5:19:31because not only would this be an attack

5:19:34to black people and predominantly poor

5:19:36neighborhoods, this will be an attack to

5:19:38humanity, to the animals in our in our

5:19:42areas that help the climate weather.

5:19:46This will be an attack to our future

5:19:48generations. It's impossible to go even

5:19:52just a day without water. We need water

5:19:55every day to cook, to clean,

5:19:59to wash our clothes with. It's

5:20:02impossible for us to like I was homeless

5:20:04for 4 months and I had to use gallons of

5:20:07water to bathe myself. That is

5:20:09unethical. It's impossible. It's It's

5:20:12not secure. Now, you say this is about

5:20:16the safety and the respect. I I

5:20:19completely go against this because this

5:20:23does not respect the people and this is

5:20:25not good for our safety as people. We

5:20:28are people. A lot of us are already

5:20:30struggling to pay bills, to pay

5:20:33electricity, to to pay to put food on

5:20:36the table. We do not want our our

5:20:40majority of our money going to BG in the

5:20:44middle of winter.

5:20:46So, I don't care who's profiting off of

5:20:49this.

5:20:51This is not for the people in Baltimore

5:20:54City. We need to be completely out of

5:20:57this. We need to ban data centers. We

5:21:01don't need data centers. We don't need

5:21:03no more AI fruit videos. Enough of that.

5:21:06It's serious stuff going on. This is one

5:21:09of them because the future generations

5:21:13and our families

5:21:14>> wrap it up. relying on.

5:21:17>> Okay.

5:21:18>> And my

5:21:18>> we just need the B

5:21:19>> just for clarification. My comments was

5:21:21about the rules of this building, not

5:21:24about data centers. Moving on to the

5:21:26next person. Justin,

5:21:30are you there? Justin,

5:21:42Justin, last call.

5:21:47Moving on to the next person.

5:21:50>> Oh, hello.

5:21:51>> Oh, Justin.

5:21:53>> Uh, yes.

5:21:54>> Yes. You have two minutes for your

5:21:56testimony.

5:21:59>> Oh. Um,

5:22:02well, I'm I I guess I just wanted to uh

5:22:06just give a few words. It's not really

5:22:08going to be that long. Um just wanted to

5:22:10mention that I'm opposed to the the

5:22:14building of any more of of these data

5:22:16centers and um that um I actually heard

5:22:21that it's something like 7 million

5:22:23gallons of of water per day uh are are

5:22:26used in uh in in regard to a lot of

5:22:30them. Um, but that uh I also heard from

5:22:34a couple of the other testimonies

5:22:36earlier that um that as far as the

5:22:39smaller ones that are already built in

5:22:41in Baltimore

5:22:43um that those require I guess

5:22:45technically less, but as far as from

5:22:48what I've gathered from this bill is

5:22:50that these would be for the over 10

5:22:53million megawatt uh data centers. Uh so

5:22:57um as far as that goes, I'm just

5:22:59completely opposed to that. So that's

5:23:01it. Thank you.

5:23:03>> Thank you, Nicole.

5:23:25Okay, last time for Nicole.

5:23:29Moving on to the next

5:23:34Arania. Arania, am I saying your name

5:23:38right?

5:23:46>> Hi, Ariana Valley.

5:23:49>> Yes. Say your first name again.

5:23:51>> Hi.

5:23:52>> Ariana.

5:23:53>> Ariana. Okay. Two minutes.

5:23:56>> You can hear me then? Thank you.

5:23:58>> Yes, we can hear I'm Ariana Valley in

5:24:00opposition to this bill. I've lived in

5:24:02Baltimore City for nearly 20 years. I

5:24:05love this city and want to protect its

5:24:07beauty and residents, as does everyone

5:24:09you've heard from today. Listen to us.

5:24:12We deserve elected officials to stand up

5:24:15for what's right and best for the

5:24:16community, for the entire community,

5:24:19because we know this is another form of

5:24:21environmental racism impacting already

5:24:24vulnerable communities the hardest.

5:24:26My ask is simple and echoes the

5:24:29sentiments of my neighbors and friends.

5:24:31Permanently ban data centers from being

5:24:33built in or near Baltimore City. Maybe

5:24:36that's not what the vote is about on

5:24:38this bill, but everything we do must

5:24:40prevent data centers from being built in

5:24:42or near our city. We already have a

5:24:44moratorum and for good reason.

5:24:47Data centers benefit no one except the

5:24:50executives of private companies and you

5:24:52maybe if they're funding your campaigns.

5:24:55We cannot trust that these companies

5:24:58will do their due diligence on

5:25:00environmental impact and public health.

5:25:02They only care about profit for

5:25:04themselves. These profits are at the

5:25:07expense of residents well-being, health,

5:25:10and financial stability, including

5:25:12yours. Not to mention the strain these

5:25:14data centers will put on our already

5:25:16fragile and failing infrastructure and

5:25:19energy grid. The city is already in

5:25:21drought conditions. We already have

5:25:24blackouts and brownouts. Data centers

5:25:26will compound all of these issues. The

5:25:29idea that data centers will save or

5:25:31create jobs is a farce. Society and the

5:25:34economy cannot function without power,

5:25:38water, clean air. Data centers cause

5:25:41noise pollution, air pollution, and

5:25:42water pollution. People are going to be

5:25:44impacted in numerous negative ways. Our

5:25:47health, our environment, property will

5:25:50be damaged due to the acceleration of

5:25:52climate change. Our ability to fund a

5:25:54comfortable life will be derailed. This

5:25:57isn't fear-mongering. It's reality.

5:25:59People who are living within miles of

5:26:01already built data centers across the

5:26:03country are experiencing mental health

5:26:05crisis due to the noise. They're

5:26:07experiencing illness and their water

5:26:09supply has been drained. There are

5:26:12numerous documented reports of the

5:26:13massive negative impacts of data

5:26:15centers. You have a duty to the people

5:26:18of Baltimore. Protect us. Protect the

5:26:20city. Ban data centers.

5:26:25Elvis.

5:26:33Elvis. Are you still on?

5:26:45Elvis Okini,

5:26:51is he still on? Okay, we'll move to the

5:26:54next. Um, Trayon Downing.

5:27:01>> Madam Chair, I'm so sorry to interrupt.

5:27:04Um, is there she mentioned There's an

5:27:08inves.

5:27:26So if it's like so for instance in the

5:27:28gentleman before Elvis I don't see him

5:27:31in the chat so I can't unmute him.

5:27:33>> Yeah. Um getting a message about

5:27:36you was

5:27:46I don't see her in the chat. Is she

5:27:48using her full name?

5:27:50>> Um, yes, she is.

5:27:52>> There's only one Nicole and it's not the

5:27:55same as it is.

5:28:01>> Is Trayon

5:28:03on?

5:28:06I'm so sorry.

5:28:07>> Downing.

5:28:09>> I don't see anyone.

5:28:12>> Rachel Snack.

5:28:19>> Hi, I'm Rachel Snack. Um,

5:28:23>> Rachel, you So, I saw that you had

5:28:26signed on in person and from my

5:28:27understanding you you had to leave to

5:28:30pick up your children and now you're

5:28:33online. So, thank you for

5:28:35>> online. Yes.

5:28:36>> And if you want to send in some written

5:28:39testimony, you can, too. And that goes

5:28:41for anyone else that might be having

5:28:42problems. You can still send in written

5:28:45testimony. But Rachel, you're on.

5:28:48Awesome. Thank you so much. My name is

5:28:49Rachel Snack. Um, I'm a mom and a

5:28:52childare worker um living in Hampton. Um

5:28:54I feel like from my community um the

5:28:56effects of data centers are already here

5:28:58in certain ways or or we're living in a

5:29:00little bit of fear as um Johns Hopkins

5:29:03builds a data center that doesn't

5:29:05technically classify as a data center

5:29:06right up against Stony Run uh park and

5:29:09that's a place that's a vibrant uh

5:29:11gathering center for community. It's a

5:29:12great nature preserve. Um events there

5:29:15all the time. My kids love to play

5:29:16there. Um but as people have said like

5:29:19across the nation we're seeing water um

5:29:21being polluted. we're seeing um wildlife

5:29:24being driven away by the sound of data

5:29:26centers. So I fear for my community

5:29:28already as um development has begun. So

5:29:30I want I came here today. It was

5:29:32important to me to speak um because of

5:29:34how many other communities will face

5:29:36this if the moratorium is lifted. Um as

5:29:39many people have said um it's going to

5:29:41probably end up in communities that are

5:29:43vulnerable, communities um that are less

5:29:45resourced than mine. and even my

5:29:47community is having trouble knowing how

5:29:49to fight back um for our uh natural

5:29:52spaces and for our um quality of life

5:29:55and low energy costs. So um I want to

5:29:57say this isn't just a touchy subject.

5:29:59It's a wildly unpopular um bill to try

5:30:03and lift the moratorum to try and um put

5:30:05more data centers in Baltimore City. Um

5:30:08and I hope that that's been made clear

5:30:10today by how many people have come out

5:30:11to speak against it. um for the purpose

5:30:14of our future I would urge you to uh

5:30:17have a data center ban in Baltimore City

5:30:20um not just a moratorium but um to

5:30:22protect the futures of our children.

5:30:24Thank you.

5:30:25>> Thank you for your testimony

5:30:28and I think we'll go back because I

5:30:30think we now have Nicole on.

5:30:34>> Hello. Can you hear me?

5:30:36>> Are you Nicole?

5:30:38>> Yes, Nicole.

5:30:39>> You're on. Two minutes.

5:30:42Hi, my name is Nicole Chaya. I'm a

5:30:44resident of Remington and a public

5:30:45health advocate urging you to reject

5:30:47this bill. This bill is being presented

5:30:49as an opportunity to [music] increase

5:30:50the transparency of data center

5:30:51proposals. But given the very well

5:30:53doumented public health burdens data

5:30:55centers have been proven to cause,

5:30:57especially near marginalized

5:30:58communities, we shouldn't be creating a

5:31:00legal framework to allow additional data

5:31:02centers to be built in the city. Why

5:31:03would we entertain a public health

5:31:05hazard? We should be banning them. Prime

5:31:07examples you've heard of before include

5:31:08Memphis, Tennessee, where residents are

5:31:10currently experiencing a disgusting

5:31:12decrease to their air and water quality

5:31:14since the addition of the XAI data

5:31:17center. Earlier this year in Calvert

5:31:18County, Maryland, Amazon Web Services

5:31:21has had plans to build three data

5:31:23centers right next to the Calver Cliffs

5:31:24nuclear power plant, which reads as an

5:31:26environmental disaster waiting to

5:31:28happen. And here in Baltimore, we all

5:31:29know what Johns Hopkins University is up

5:31:31to. I strongly urge you to oppose this

5:31:33zoning bill because of the simple fact

5:31:35that no one benefits from having a data

5:31:36center in their backyard. No one

5:31:38benefits from something that will

5:31:39pollute their natural resources,

5:31:41increase their electricity bills, and

5:31:42decrease their property value in in or

5:31:44near their neighborhood. From no data

5:31:46center rallies near city hall to

5:31:48conversations I've had with neighbors,

5:31:50it's clear most working-class people do

5:31:52not want data centers in city hall in

5:31:53the city, regardless of what zone it's

5:31:55in. Um, additionally, I see the bill

5:31:57requires a health equity assessment, and

5:31:59it's nice to see. However, the data

5:32:01center applicant would be the one who

5:32:02prepares the assessment, which seems

5:32:04like a clear conflict of interest. As of

5:32:06this morning, there are over 8,300

5:32:08Baltimore City residents who have signed

5:32:10a petition calling on the Baltimore City

5:32:12mayor and council president to publicly

5:32:13oppose the construction and expansion of

5:32:15data centers within Baltimore City.

5:32:17These Baltimore city taxpayers and

5:32:19voters will not forget about this issue

5:32:20just because there is a one-year data

5:32:22center moratorum. Lastly, much like the

5:32:25residents of Cal County who this past

5:32:27June unseated three incumbent city

5:32:29council members who supported the

5:32:30expansion of data centers, many

5:32:32Baltimore residents are bringing that

5:32:33same energy whenever the opportunity

5:32:35arises. It's worth noting that since

5:32:37June, plans for the Amazon Web Services

5:32:39data center in Calver County have been

5:32:41abandoned. And I hope this serves as as

5:32:43an example of what is possible when we

5:32:45listen to what the majority of working

5:32:47people want. Please oppose this bill and

5:32:49thank you for unmuting me.

5:32:51>> Thank you.

5:32:55So again, if anyone wants to send any

5:32:59further written testimony that you have

5:33:02more to say, you can always send it to

5:33:04the sponsor of the bill, Felicia.

5:33:08>> Baltimore City.gov

5:33:12>> and also the testimony.

5:33:14And um at this point, if um the sponsor

5:33:18of the bill, Councilwoman Porter, you're

5:33:20on. Thank you so much madam madam chair.

5:33:23I have a few points of clarification. Um

5:33:25I just want to note that this is a part

5:33:27of the larger impact study. Um this is

5:33:30not the full framework. There's still

5:33:32going to be a moratorum that is

5:33:34currently going now. Um Austin how many

5:33:37people are working on this particular

5:33:39moratorium study?

5:33:40>> Currently we have two but we're hoping

5:33:41to expand that greatly in the next week

5:33:43or two.

5:33:43>> Great. And so only two people are

5:33:46working on the study. Where what

5:33:47agencies are they from? They are from

5:33:49the two sponsoring agencies, planning

5:33:50and Baltimore Development Corporation.

5:33:52>> Great. Next, um the current landscape of

5:33:55data centers. So yesterday, you know,

5:33:57there's this conversation that um data

5:33:59centers are coming to Baltimore. Um data

5:34:02centers are, you know, coming to

5:34:03Baltimore. Data centers are here in

5:34:05Baltimore. It was on the record

5:34:07yesterday where six data centers are

5:34:09currently in the city of Baltimore right

5:34:11now. Um

5:34:14honestly, unregulated. I I will I will

5:34:16say that unregulated. They were

5:34:17regulated through the department of

5:34:19planning but they have no health, no

5:34:22environmental, no air pollution aspects

5:34:24on them whatsoever. With regards to

5:34:26strengthening the moratorum, I welcome

5:34:28that. I welcome the opportunity to

5:34:30strengthen the moratorum. Um again with

5:34:32the council legislative topic process,

5:34:35um the holder of that legislative topic

5:34:37would have to welcome my um engagement

5:34:41into that perspective um into that

5:34:43perspective approach. Um, with regard to

5:34:46bill amendment that aligns with the

5:34:48moratorum, I just want to again correct

5:34:50the record that this bill as it's

5:34:52amended um would not be in conflict with

5:34:56the moratorum. It would actually be um

5:34:58working with the moratorium and it would

5:35:00sunset uh with the moratorum so that um

5:35:03we are not working to lift the

5:35:05moratorum. It this bill would be

5:35:07effectuated once the moratorium is done

5:35:09and the study is done as well. Lastly,

5:35:12not lastly, I still got a little bit

5:35:13more. Um, with regard to um the

5:35:18resourced of any type of impact studies,

5:35:20we've seen, you mentioned tobacco

5:35:22companies and oil companies, but I would

5:35:24like to um remind folks that the opioid

5:35:26restitution funds were because the city

5:35:28of Baltimore sued um the pharmaceutical

5:35:31companies. Then the pharmaceutical

5:35:32companies came back and provided the

5:35:35city of Baltimore with resources for any

5:35:37type of community engagement or benefits

5:35:39agreements. Next, um I just want to

5:35:42underscore this. Um I totally agree. The

5:35:45key is uh not to have these data centers

5:35:47to um be built in the first place. That

5:35:51is the whole reason why I'm I'm really

5:35:53pushing conditional use by ordinance.

5:35:55Um, you have multiple [clears throat]

5:35:57opportunities through the conditional

5:35:58use by ordinance process to not only

5:36:01stop a data center, but as a community

5:36:04member, your vote can vote out a council

5:36:07member that brings forth and or moves

5:36:09forward a project that is not in benefit

5:36:11to your community. You do not have that

5:36:13aspect from the BMCA process. Next,

5:36:18the Baltimore industrial history. Again,

5:36:20conditional use by BMCA. We talk about

5:36:23CSX. We talk about the medical waste

5:36:24incinerator. We talk about um any

5:36:27industry quite honestly that um comes

5:36:30into the city of Baltimore. It often

5:36:31goes by conditional use by BMCA. It does

5:36:34not go through conditional use by

5:36:36ordinance because of simply the process

5:36:38that I just that I just outlined. If you

5:36:41have conditional use by ordinance, you

5:36:42have a much more greater opportunity to

5:36:45have your council member being being in

5:36:47the no, having an opportunity for them

5:36:49to say no and to stop the project. You

5:36:52do not have that opportunity to do that

5:36:54with the BMZ. We have seen that multiple

5:36:56times with the industries that the the

5:36:59uh young lady just mentioned.

5:37:01Last but certainly not least,

5:37:04let me see. Power ownership text,

5:37:05please. Yep, that's it, Madam Chair.

5:37:08Thank you.

5:37:09>> Thank you.

5:37:10>> Oops. Thank you. And uh I want to thank

5:37:13uh many of you that have been here since

5:37:169:00 a.m. and and uh listened to the

5:37:19other five hearings and bills that we uh

5:37:24had. And um again, thank you for your

5:37:27testimony and um this particular hearing

5:37:32is in recess.